Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 8

Academic source
, your revert edit summary while correct in asserting that the JC is not an academic source (though most definitely a good newspaper), overlooked this being sourced in its entirety to an secondary academic book covering this in detail (the JC was merely added as a second source with the same quote). We should be using top-notch academic sources when possible. Kindly do self-revert once you review the edit again. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "overlooked" them I read your edit summery saw your first source was not an academic source. Edit summaries are supposed to accurately reflect the edit, yours did not. I have no issue with using academic sources, I have issues with slipping other sources in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , there being a second source - with the exact same quote - does not make the first sentence any less due or reliably sourced. The entirety of the prose inserted is supported by the cited book as well. My edit summary of "secondary academic sourcing" fully reflected the fact that every single word in the inserted prose was, in fact, supported by secondary academic sourcing. Again - if you do not have a policy based rationale for your reversion - then self revert please (if you want to leave just the second source - that's fine as well). Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then add it back with an accurate edit summery without trying to slip in other stuff. Avoid misleading summaries mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading and should be avoided.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. As clearly stated, there was nothing misleading with the edit summary - every bit of prose was supported by a very good secondary academic source directly addressing the subject at hand. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This NY Times article contains a review of Lipstadt's Antisemitism: Here and Now. According to the article: "Written as a series of letters to two composite characters, a “whip smart” Jewish college student and a well-meaning gentile law professor, Lipstadt’s book aims not to break new scholarly ground but to awaken her audience to the nature, persistence and scale of the threat, along with the insidious ways in which it seeks to disguise itself." The implication appears to be that what is stated isn't in the voice of Lipstadt herself, but two fictive people, a student and professor. Anything not stated in Lipstadt's own voice cannot be regarded as a statement of fact for anything other than what the book contains. Also, the claim that the book is "academic" in style would appear to be far-fetched. The Jewish Chronicle article cited is an opinion piece and so cannot be used as a source for anything other than Pollard's opinion and claims he has made.      ←   ZScarpia  15:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've obtained a copy of "Antisemitism: Here and Now". Confirming what the NY Times review mentioned above says, Lipstadt writes in the introduction: "I have organized this book as a series of letters to two fictional people with whom I have become “acquainted” at the university at which I teach. One is “Abigail,” a whip-smart Jewish student who has taken many of my courses and who is trying to understand the phenomenon of antisemitism. The other is “Joe,” a colleague who teaches at the university’s law school. A non-Jew, he has a deep appreciation for both the successes and travails of the Jewish people, and he counts some of his Jewish colleagues as his most important conversation partners on campus." I misread the purport of the review, reading it to mean that the book was in the form of letters between two fictional people, whereas it's in the form of letters from Lipstadt to two fictional people. So, the material cited is in the Lipstadt's voice, albeit in the form of a "fictional letter". The material cited appears in Chapter II, "A Taxonomy of the Antisemite", in a subsection titled "Antisemitc Enablers", in a "letter" purportedly sent by Lipstadt to a group of Oxford University students. In my opinion, the "letter" starts well with interesting material, but soon morphs into a case for the prosecution, giving a skewed and incomplete version of "the facts". That the cited material appears in a "fictional letter" gives rise to an interesting problem over how to actually cite the material in Wikipedia. Presumably Lipstadt intended the contents as a fair version of the facts, but that cannot be stated with certainty. In any case, the contents of the letter do not present a neutral version of events as they are contradicted elsewhere. Therefore, Lipstadt's "fictional" point of view can be presented, but only as a point of view among other points of view.        ←   ZScarpia  10:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Academic book. That the the book is organized in a Q&A form, a rhetoric device, means little when we are using the A (answers) - as opposed to the questions.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What's your definition of academic? This one is neither aimed at an academic (university or college) audience, peer reviewd or published by a publisher which specialises in books aimed at an academic audience. I would also expect an academic book to make an effort to present multiple versions of "the facts" when they exist, as they do in this case, rather than just the antagonistic one. Having looked through the book, I'm disappointed by examples it shows of bias, hypocrisy, double standards and false reasoning.     ←   ZScarpia  11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

29 Rabbis - hoax?
This content was removed. While multiple WP:RSes have covered this letter as a possible forgery - - we have a single source responding to the forgery claims (a few days later) -  saying that "After its publication, doubts were raised about the letter and there were claims the signatories were misled as to its content before they signed. Mr Stern and Mr Friedman denied this, insisting that some of the rabbis even made their own amendments." and that three (of 29!) signatories confirmed they signed. Suggesting, in our own voice, that all 29 have signed when this is covered by RSes as a forgery - is in WP:HOAX territory (at most - we can say that 2 activists stand behind the letter and that 3 rabbis confirmed they signed it). Furthermore, I'll note that coverage of this letter is limited to a single week in September 2018 - raising WP:UNDUE concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going from what you inserted - the initial claim was that it was a hoax, but then that claim was withdrawn (your own text); the two statements cancel each other out. If you have a reliable source which says it was a hoax fine we can qualify and remove.  If you say 3 rabbis confirm they signed it, then you have to say that 24 have not denied it and so on.   There is too great a tendency to 'spin' any reference on this subject by both sides so can we please keep it to direct statements from reliable sources without synthesis or selective qualification. -Snowded TALK 08:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We could say "was accused of being a hoax, but at least three of the signatories confirmed they had signed it".Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But the accusation was withdrawn - sorry that self cancels -Snowded TALK 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose we could say "was accused of being a hoax, but the accusation was latter withdrawn".Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems unnecessary, if something is known not to be true, why give it space. We are trying to cut out excess in this article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The reporting by JPost and Jewish Week wasn't withdrawn. Nor did the JC quite back down - it merely followed up and talked to the activists behind this who claimed this was genuine (+confirmed 3 sigs). Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Chronicle initially made claims that the letter was a hoax and that was picked up by Israeli publications and sites. Later articles backtracked and more recent ones are stating that there were 34 signees, not 29 . So, the story has moved on. The source which origninally published claims of a hoax having stopped claiming that, there is no reason to carry on casting doubt on the letter's authenticity.     ←   ZScarpia  12:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple NEWORGs reported this was a hoax. The JC subsequently interviewed the activists behind the letter who claimed this was genuine (+3 rabbis of the 29 or 34). At most we can say that the activists behind this say 29 (or 34) signed this (+3 confirmed ). There hasn't been any retraction or followup elsewhere (in fact - seems there hasn't been any coverage since September 2018).Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A Skwakbox article ("Jewish Chronicle rows quietly back from claims rabbis’ Corbyn-support letter is fake") which prints an image of the original, since amended, 02 Spetember 2018 Jewish Chronicle article, "Letter from Charedi rabbis defending Jeremy Corbyn condemned as fake," which reported claims of a fake. Do you have an earlier source? Note that the original version of the amended article and the three I link to in my previous comment are all by Ben Welch. In the lastest article, published on 20 September, Welsh states, without questioning its authenticity, that the letter was signed by "34 leading Charedi rabbis" and "circulated in the strictly Orthodox communities of North London".       ←   ZScarpia  13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * skwawkbox is not remotely a RS. The JC at most supports something attributed to the activists. JPost and Jewish News both only have reporting on this as a possible fake. Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I failed to make the reason why I posted a link to the Skwakbox article clear. As explained in that article, the Jewish Chronicle "appears to use software to prevent any archiving of its pages," and therefore it is difficult to obtain copies of deleted, or the original version of amended, articles. The reason I posted the link wasn't because I was proposing that the article should be used as a reliable source for material to add to the current Wikipedia one, but so that the original version of how claims about the Orthodox rabbis' letter being a fake were reported in the Jewish Chronicle.      ←   ZScarpia  16:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * From what I can see from the sources, the organisation which initially questioned the authenticity of the letter later backed down and accepted it was genuine. If you are still trying to claim that it isn't genuine on the basis that the newspaper only contacted three of the signatories, then that counts as WP:SYNTH in my opinion. G-13114 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * JPost and JN are reliable - and did not retract. JC used attributed reporting - not its own voice. Here's later reporting by JC in January 2019 -- "Mr Stern meanwhile is known to have been attempting to court the Labour leader of the past year. He was behind a letter sent last September .... But Mr Stern was himself condemned for claiming his letter had the support of a large section of the Charedi community in Stamford Hill .... The letter was picked up pro-Corbyn campaigners in an attempt to discredit the Board - but Mr Stern was attacked by leaders of the Strictly Orthodox community who said he did not speak for them.". JC, January 2019 - so - you have a letter organized by Mr Stern of rather dubious provenance (and rather scant reporting - in this case brought up in the context of another mini-scandal involving Stern - seems the other Charedi person in the photo with Corbyn immediately afterwards messaged "all contacts" he had been "unexpectedly dragged" into the photo and that "I don't support Corbyn and never did"). So - as of January 2019 - still a dodgy letter. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, as they have stopped calling it fake, all they have now said is that not every member of the community agrees.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Get consensus first for any change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - you've reverted back in content that doesn't pass WP:V. Covered as a fake by multiple organizations (JPost, Jewish News for instance) and the later JC coverage casts some serious doubts into the letter organized by Shraga Stern - "But Mr Stern was himself condemned for claiming his letter had the support of a large section of the Charedi community in Stamford Hill ... Mr Stern was attacked by leaders of the Strictly Orthodox community who said he did not speak for them. . Introducing material to an article that would seem to qualify as a WP:HOAX is not defensible by "lack of consensus". I will further add, that in saying in our voice that 29 rabbis signed (when at most there are 3 confirmed rabbis, and the letter is covered as a forgery/fake by multiple news orgs) - you are introducing a rather serious WP:BLP issue towards the 26 non-confirmed alleged signatories. I suggest you either self-revert or remove the paragraph entirely - since as it stands currently it is in WP:HOAX turf with serious BLP issues.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not fail V, everything in it is sourced to an RS. This is the last stable version, and one that has consensus. And no there are no BLP issues as no one has said they have no signed it, the accusation (that they did not know what they were signing) comes from third parties and is just as much a BLP violation (and an accusation thei JCC now admits was false, and it is their accusation that is the basis of the forgery claims).Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, this is not the last stable version - which would be prior to 11 Feb removal of fake claims - this version on 11 Feb. The forgery claims were widely reported. There hasn't been any subsequent source saying this was confirmed to be authentic. Misrepresenting a source - - which merely supports that two activists insist the letter is genuine - is not passing V. Furthermore when the same NEWSORG in later reporting (Jan 2019) casts further doubts (and we generally prefer later reporting to at the time reporting) - Jan 2019 at JC - saying you've surpassed V here is a stretch. Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your new sources does not say the letter was faked, and all of the sources that say it was refer to the initial statement by the JCC they subsequently withdrew. In fact all of your sources have stopped calling it faked. So if you want to suggest a new version post it here for discussion. But it must reflect the whole story.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All sources? Of 3 sources covering this trivial letter - 2 - JPost and Jewish News last reported this was a fake. The only source to have done followup reporting is JC - and they merely support that the activists behind the letter claim it is genuine (in the face of claims of forgery) - and later coverage by JC is quite critical. Again - misrepresenting sources on Wikipedia is a serious manner, and you should self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The JC did not in fact last report it was fake, they last reported the JCC had withdrawn the claim [] "A JCC spokesman said: “After making our enquiries by the lead rabbis behind the letter, we can hereby confirm the letter is authentic and is genuinely signed by the leading rabbonim of our community in full faith.”".Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As to the JN, is this the same JN that said [] "It appears, however, that the letter may well be authentic and the row over its appearance is part of an ongoing “turf war” within Stamford Hill as to who has overall authority in the community.", not exactly a ringing endorsement that it was fake.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming that it is fake is clearly WP:SYNTH, as the sources do not explicitly support that conclusion. As for the lack of coverage, well given the massive inherent reporting bias shown by 90% of the media (as confirmed by the academic report last year) it's hardly surprising they refuse to cover any story which might present Labour or Corbyn in a positive light. You yourself Icewhiz have argued we should use JC as a reliable source in the past when it has suited you. G-13114 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not objected to use of JC. I have object to the misrepresentation of JC (which supports an attributed claim to the activists), and the favoring of September 2018 reporting over their later January 2019 reporting - Jan 2019 at JC - which we should prefer as it is removed from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then write a suggested new text here for us to discus, one that covers the whole story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Trim rebuttals
We are supposed to discus any suggested trimming..Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * jumping in when someone else is in an edit chain and doing a blanket revert on material at least some of which clearly should be out per a recently closed RfC is not constructive. I self-reverted a subsequent edit so not to technically break 1RR. A constructive editing approach would have been not a wholesale blanket revert - but returning only those bits which you think have some value. We have a clear consensus in "RfC.7 Rebuttals section" that this overly long section should be trimmed in some (unspecified) manner. A revert with a "should discuss" rationale is not a valid policy based rationale (and would appear to be stonewalling). Please justify each and every bit you just reverted back in and/or propose a trim yourself.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And making mass deletions without any consensus is not either. It is down to your to suggest changes, not down to us, you want stuff removed, make a case. Yes we have a consensus it is too long, there is (as the RFC made clear) not consensus as to what should be removed and so "Editors should continue such a discussion", that does not read to me like "make a mass deletion and then discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a rationale for your blanket revert. I provided a rationale - trimming UNDUE content from an overly long section. "Discuss first" is not a rationale for this content.Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, it was too much undiscussed deletion in (to one degree) going against the spirit of the RFC which made it clear we need to discuss this before any changes are made. And it is your view it is undue, not the view of the RFC, why it said it needed further discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC clearly agreed a rather massive trim is due. Now that we are discussing, please provide a rationale for retention of what you reverted back in beyond just saying it should discussed - as given our current discussion, this point is already moot.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, after I started the conversation. Also a Trim does not mean wholesale removal, much of the material, can be kept just shortened. I mass reverted because it is impossible to make individual arguments during such a huger deletion. What may be applicable to one passage may not be applicable to another, Thus your mass deletion made meaningful discussion of it undeedfully complex. You say it was all undue, I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy with Icewhiz's proposed removal of content - was there anything in particular you thought should stay Slatersteven? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said there is just way to much to wade through, but (for example) why are the views of notable Jewish historians not worthy of inclusion, its not as if we do not quote others?.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Including every single (or thereabouts) notable Jew that spoken in support of Corbyn leads to false balance (particularly when most of them are known for their activist stance of a particular bent). I am not sure we should favor Jewish rebuttals (seems pretty shaky to me) - however should we set such a low bar for rebuttals - then we would have set the same bar for condemnations - leading to an overly long article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly (but we do not, some (such as "just some comedians" have already been removed), that is why we discus. Do we in fact have an imbalance, how many rebuttals to we have compared to individuals calling labour out?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The ideal, of course, in contentious situations is that editors practise writing for the opponent. Failing that, next best is that editors work on sections outling the arguments or narratives they are in sympathy with and allow editors with a different point of view a reasonably free hand to develop the opposition case. Worst is when point of view pushing develops, when there is a tendency for one version to be presented as the truth and other points of view are actively suppressed.


 * I don't think that opinions of commentators should be jammed into the article just to bulk out the amount of commentary favouring one particular point of view, but I do think that it should be included if it serves the purpose of elucidating what the arguments of one or other of the sides are. For the "defence", that would be the alternative narrative version of events (Corbyn didn't say that British Jews in general don't understand English irony etc.), that much of the news coverage is biased and inaccurate, that it is to do with the party leader's support for the Palestinian cause and thwarting anti-Israel activism rather than antisemitism per se (antisemites are tolerated as long as they are pro-Israel etc) and so on.


 *    ←   ZScarpia  11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, part of the "case for the defence" is to show to what extent those speaking for the prosecution are not, as they perhaps sometimes are claiming, speaking on behalf of the whole Jewish community and to try to outline the nature of that division isn't it?      ←   ZScarpia  12:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The conclusion of the RfC was: "There is consensus to include a trimmed version. There is no consensus as to what that trimmed version should be. Editors should continue such a discussion." Therefore: there is no consensus as to what should be trimmed and a discussion about that should be carried out. To claim that there is consensus for for a massive removal of material from the section and to do that without discussion is clearly are clearly incorrect. The section should be reverted to its original state until a discussion has been carried out.     ←   ZScarpia  10:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I must admit I am bit confused how consensus is measured. On the 'comedian' rfc folks voted 8 to exclude against 6 who wanted to Include plus 2 who wanted to modify, how did that result in total deletion. On this rebutle rfc only 3 voted for excluding, 5 voted for Inclusion, 1.5 Modify, 1.5 Trim (the two .5's was me ) ... I am not seeing any consensus to rip out huge junks of this section. Consensus is rather mysterious ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Another example Sedgley. 4 voted to exclude, 5 for include and 1 Trim/modify ...the result = deletion? ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 21:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * while a headcount is useful it is not the be all end all of establishing consensus - policy strength plays a role. For Q2, my "headcount" is slightly different than your as I see 9 excludes, 6 includes (which counts you as an include because of how Q11 resolved), and 2 trims. So on strict headcount it's some version of 8-9 plus there were policy considerations that were raised by the exclude voters and not addressed in my reading by include voters. This lent both headcount and policy weight to not include. On Q7 both include and exclude commentators, suggested trim in addition to the people who said trim as their bolded response. I hope that helps explain my thinking in closing these RfCs. If you're curious about the process in general this essay could be a good place to read more. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the explanation :), I will try to digest the essay. I guess for this RFC7 it would be good for someone to trim the excess with finesse, rather than just hack and burn. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, trim does not mean deletion of whole sections, it can mean reducing those sections to a line or two. Or combing different views into signal paragraphs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I share your confusion. WP:CONSENSUS says explicitly that it is not the "result of a vote": When polling is carried out, consensus is "determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting." Yet invariably, the results of RfCs seem to taken pretty much on a show of hands with no consideration given to which arguments most closely concern adherence to policy.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)  (a new article: The Guardian -  Jessica Elgot - Labour says it has looked into 673 cases of alleged antisemitism, 11 February 2019: "Labour revealed it has investigated 673 alleged cases and expelled 12 party members since last April")

Can I repeat the proposal I made in the "opinion pieces" RfC above, which had some support, that we remove all the opinion pieces that are not cited in secondary sources? Or, at least that we remove the lengthy paraphrasing and quoting of these opinion pieces and replace them with text along the lines of "Among those who wrote positive opinion pieces were X, Y, and Z, while A, B and C wrote critical opinion pieces", leaving the references in the footnotes for the curious reader? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2019
The first reference to the late MP Gerald Kaufman, in the section "Alleged influence" just says...

'''"In 2015, Kaufman said that "Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party ... "'''

Really it should give his full name and title - as it is the first instance in the page that references him.

The text should ideally read.

'''"In 2015, Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman said that "Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party ... "''' 77.100.41.4 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, done this, more or less 20:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved, so I'm marking the edit request as answered. Roadguy2 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party
Yep off topic, but I feel this other article could be improved with the input of the many dedicated editors who contribute to this page. The article is big, with a longer history, but I believe many eyes might help. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 11:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes off topic, this is not about that page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Letter to the editor
- please provide a policy based justification for including this content. The sole source here is a letter to the editor of the Guardian (so a PRIMARY, non-independent source) - which is the definition of WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus has been achieved for the removal of longer term material, and its not as if other open letters are not covered (off and yes tehre is now another source). Stop removing content without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Did you even check what you were reverting? Long term material?! The letter was published in the Guardian on 20 Feb 2019 - and added to our article on 21 Feb 2019. If at all - there is no consensus to insert this new material. Please provide a policy based justification for your revert - after you actually check what you've reverted! Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my appologese, I was thinking of the other letter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been so many open letters on this issue, we really don't want to include them all. Our general rule should be to include those cited in a couple of secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, all the opinion pieces quoted at length in the article should be removed unless they're referred to in secondary sources elsewhere. I think you'll find that the letter to the Guardian is referred to by a fair number of Corbyn-supporting writers, JVL etc. and is seen as a reasonably important part of the case against accusations that the Labour Party is a nest of antisemites. There has to be a balance struck over making the cases for the different points of view. At the moment it does look to me as though trivial material is being inserted in support of one case while important elements of the opposite one are being stripped out. Neutral it isn't!   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to say I agree with this: "all the opinion pieces quoted at length in the article should be removed unless they're referred to in secondary sources elsewhere". Ideally more than one secondary source. I've argued that repeatedly on this talk page. Note, there are currently 9 of these mass letters cited in the article now, 4 anti-JC and 5 pro-JC (one of which, April 2015, seems unnecessarily described in the chronological section and the rebuttals section) and many of them cite only one or two secondary sources, suggesting they didn't get widespread secondary coverage. I really think we need to keep it lean and use words only where there is a body of secondary coverage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added the letter orginally with just the primary source; now, I've put it in again referencing the secondary sources mentioned by ZScarpia, addressing the concern of Icewhiz and BobFromBrockley. Thanks, all. Jontel (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Perhaps it should be added that the letter was organised by Jewish Voice For Labour.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not acceptable. The breakaway of the The Independent Group receives less space than this rather non-notable letter. Furthermore, it seems this letter, per the cited sources, received coverage mainly due to some aspects of those who signed it - Founder of Facebook group featuring Holocaust denial signs pro-Corbyn letter, JC. Should we think about including this letter (after greatly expanding the section on The Independent Group) - we should include what was included in RSes - "The founder of the Palestine Live Facebook group – which contains Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories about Israel’s involvement in the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks". Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have two secondary sources, a BBC news item and a Morning Star opinion piece. The latter seems a poor source. If other RSs cover the story in the way Icewhiz notes here, then our wording is poor.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Kayla Bibby
Who? is she a leading party figure, an MP, a prospective MP?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Conference delegate (and on candidate list). Labour allowing her to attend while being investigated has generated significant coverage - JC, The Times, HuffPost, Jewish News, Guardian (and multiple pieces in each)- coverage of this spanning from November 2018 through March 2019. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes she was a Labour activist, conference delegate and prospective MP who appealed against her exclusion from the candidate list. The incident was covered in some detail in multiple mainstream news sources (all WP:RS) and certainly makes WP:GNG. This article is about antisemitism in the Labour Party, not antisemitism perpetrated by Labour MPs. This is certainly one of the cases that the general public are aware of.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  09:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, We are talking about a private individual i.e. not holding a party or elected position. There was one event. So, WP:BLP1E, albeit that references entire articles. It was the just the posting of a cartoon on her social media timeline: there was no objectionable text. She was found to have no antisemitic intent and no legal charges are contemplated. So, if such individuals are felt as meriting being permanently 'named and shamed' on Wikipedia, based on the level of media coverage, we seem to be setting a low bar in terms of the individual and action. Jontel (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism is not a crime, so it is not clear why charges or lack thereof are relevant. She was "suspended and barred from the party’s candidates list yesterday for posting antisemitic imagery taken from Incogman". BLP1E doesn't apply as were are not dealing with a bio on Bibby but her inclusion in another article. Regardless, she is a PUBLICFIGURE, with coverage pre-dating the posting of said imagery - e.g. - rail design - as well as wildlife at the docks - . So - 3E at least. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not true. She was originally given a "reminder of conduct" as she was considered to be anti-Israel rather than anti-semitic. However, Louise Ellman MP complained, taking a dossier of material from the Incogman blog (if you haven't seen it, take a look... there is no doubt as to the nature of the site) and she was given the full suspension for anti-semitism.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  11:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * She is not judged by Wikipedia to be a public figure on the basis of the coverage of her professional activities. "A public figure is a person such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or even business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]" In politics, she is a private individual with no status. I don't know what 3E means. Just as point of fact, the suspension is not a penalty following a judgement but a preliminary to a further investigation. With the addition to the article of Gurbuz, too, who says that her sister sent the offensive tweets in 2011-14, I am concerned about a certain witch hunt/ purge aspect of this general situation and wonder how many low level individuals will be named and shamed. Jontel (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1E = 1 Event. 3E = 3 Event. And probably a bit more. She's well covered for her very public activities well prior to this scandal. Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on Bibby's inclusion, if it is noteworthy enough given how much there already is in the article, but some of these arguments against are weak. BLP1E is for articles; it's obviously fine to mention people not themselves notable enough for their own articles (we mention Charlotte Nichols and Richard Kuper for example). Also, this is not an article about suspensions from the party or crimes, so what exact internal or legal charges are made against someone should also not determine inclusion. The criteria should be significant coverage of something alleged to be antisemitic that happens within the party.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A witch hunt huh? How about the following... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-claims-candidate-fair-right-twitter-meme-a7570181.html https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/john-clarke-suspended/ https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/labour-take-no-action-against-11923281 https://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-09-21/councillor-apologises-after-racist-video-is-shared-on-his-personal-facebook-page/ https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-councillor-who-shared-zio-matrix-video-wont-be-disciplined/ https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/anti-semitism-row-councillor-andy-slack-punished-for-insidious-facebook-post-1-8187658 https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-councillor-suspended-for-anti-semitic-meme/
 * John Clarke, parliamentary candidate accused of anti-semitism after retweeting a far right meme
 * Zafar Iqbal, Labour councillor from whose facebook account a film by David Duke, leader of the Ku Klux Klan, about a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, was shared. He denied being responsible.
 * Andrew Slack, Labour councillor who shared a Nazi-style antisemitic caricature of a jew smeared in blood (this one is really nasty...)

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-councillor-apologised-likening-idf-to-nazis-is-elected/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-suspends-member-who-thinks-isis-israeli-conspiracy-a6956551.html
 * Luke Cresswell, Labour councillor who posted arguably antisemitic material, including comparisons of IDF members to Nazis and a blood soaked star of David with the caption "Moses must be proud of you" (last I checked, Moses was not linked to the state of Israel or the Netenyahu government, but was Judaism's main prophet.)
 * Bob Campbell, Labour activist suspended for claiming ISIS was controlled by Israel

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-suspend-activist-over-jewish-genocide-of-the-british-people-tweet-1.56965 https://www.jta.org/2016/05/12/global/uk-labour-member-suspended-for-blog-claiming-jews-commit-genocide-on-british
 * Musabbir Ali, Labour campaign official who claimed that the Jews were perpetrating a genocide against the British people (?)

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/15309766.jews-concerned-over-councillors-alleged-anti-semitic-tweets/ http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/exclusive-labour-suspended-over-zionazi-storm-troopers-posts/
 * Terry Couchman, Labour council candidate referring to "ZioNazi Stormtroopers of IsraHell"

Should we avoid mentioning them in case we upset them? If you are promoting yourself as a politician you are promoting yourself as a public figure.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Horrible! To answer your question, I personally wouldn't have objections to you mentioning them in the article. However there are BLP issues in what you wrote which you should address. Zafar Iqbal said that he doesn't know how the video came to be posted on his Facebook page and that claim was accepted by the Labour disciplinary body. Therefore, you cannot state as a fact that he "shared a film by David Duke". You state as a fact that Luke Cresswell posted antisemitic material. However, the Jewish News article itself doesn't make that claim. The closest it comes is carrying a statement from the Campaign Against Antisemitism that one of the posts was "clearly anti-Semitic" on the grounds that it was "conflating extreme criticism of Israel with the Jewish religion”. That is "clearly" an opinion. You might like to know that, on being sued by Tony Greenstein for stating as a fact that he is a "notorious antisemite", part of the Campaign's defence was that the statement should be regarded as merely the "expression of an opinion".  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  14:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course... anything posted should be adequately referenced. "[C}onflating extreme criticism of Israel with the Jewish religion” is pretty close to "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel" and portraying IDF soldiers as Nazis, well... "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  15:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's all still opinion though. And you do need to edit your previous comments so they don't breach WP:BLP.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they do, but have altered the comments. Excuse the horrible English  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Spinning by understatement
Some of the language in this article is troubling as it seems to deliberately understate events to introduce a non-NPOV. An example is "Jackie Walker [...] was briefly suspended from Party membership for commenting on Facebook on the degree of participation of Jewish people in the Atlantic slave trade." That would be incredibly disturbing if it was the case. But of course that's not what she was suspended for. She was suspended for stating that Jews were among chief financiers of the slave trade and held responsibility for what she called the "African holocaust". Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  10:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see why a generalized formulation can seem that way. But there are issues. Firstly, we are dealing with potentially libellous material so should be careful about what is said, particularly about people in the UK where libel law is strict. Then, Labour Party suspensions, as I understand it, do not give a precise reason - they look into an area of conduct, so we can not say exactly what the suspension was for. Words taken out of context, particularly when they were made in a private conversation, can always be potentially misleading. She herself says her accepted words do not reflect her considered views. This complexity can be addressed in her article by providing all the details, but that isn't appropriate when one is providing a summary. The current article expression is a bit wordy. How about making it "...was briefly suspended from Party membership for her comments about the role of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade" Jontel (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Potentially libellous? No. It's well referenced what she actually said... that the Jews were chief financiers of the slave trade. Any appearance of partisan bias damages the credibility of WP.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Libel law in the UK is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not based in the UK, and we apply NPOV without prejudice in all geographic locales. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this was a spying operation on a private conversation with the purpose of damaging her, it is problematic to interpret her words, or quote them out of context, or omit the circumstances in which they were said or her explanation. There is a link from her name to her page where people can find the detail, unless you want to include it here. I have tweaked this page for now to say "was briefly suspended from membership over comments she made on the role of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade". This is non specific about what she did say or mean precisely, but summaries have to be general sometimes. Jontel (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A spying operation? You do realise that she posts to her facebook account publically?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * She said "It was not a public posting but part of a private discussion with a Zionist friend and others" Jontel (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That WP:SPS, and not authored by Walker, so we can't use it as a source for Walker. Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

wp:blp still applies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: Jackie Walker herself said that the contents of that private Facebook conversation were misreported; she neither claimed that Jews were the chief financiers of the Atlantic slave trade or that the Jews caused the African Holocaust: "It was not a public posting, but part of a private discussion with a Zionist Israeli friend and others about the African Holocaust and the fact that Jews - notably my own Portuguese Jewish ancestors whose history I had researched - had been involved in the sugar and slave trade. This Facebook contribution was reduced to a sensationalist and inaccurate article in the Jewish Chronicle which claimed that I had said that "Jews caused the African Holocaust"." Walker goes on to say: "I was investigated in detail by the Labour Party. My Facebook posts, my public statements were examined in detail. I attended a full hearing, but the Compliance Unit of the Labour Party could find no case to answer." That being so, what the Jewish Chronicle and other such newspapers have to say should be treated as claims made by them, not statements of fact in the Wikipedia voice.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Walker's comments on her comments (or on newspapers) are rather immaterial (it seems even the Labour party is not convinced - she's still suspended) - what matters is how this is reported in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Walker has been suspended twice. The first time was for the Facebook comments and that suspension, as Walker said, was lifted. The second time was for her comments at a meeting about Holocaust Memorial Day and definitions of antisemitism. That suspension is the one which will be reviewed this month. See this Jewish Chronicle article. I disagree that Walker's comments are immaterial and also that the Jewish Chronicle's content on the affair should be treated as reliable fact. As stated in the Media Reform Coalition's report, the reporting on the Labour antisemitism crisis in the mainstream media has been a morass of disinformation, with misrepresentation, taking out of context, omission and exagerration. What is true of the mainstream media is also true of the Jewish Chronicle, which, though excellent on matters on which it doesn't have a dog in the fight, is highly WP:PARTISAN with respect to the current controversy. As an example, take a look at the article I've provided a link to. It avoids claiming that Walker said that Jews were "the chief" financiers of the Atlantic slave trade, but it does make misleading and inaccurate claims that Walker said that "she had not found a definition of antisemitism she could 'work with'" and that she questioned "why Holocaust Memorial Day did not commemorate other genocides, only for it to be pointed out to her that it does". The first claim is misleading because it implies that Walker was saying that she had never heard a definition she could work with, whereas what she was saying was that she hadn't heard a definition she agreed with at the meeting where the comment was made. The second claim misrepresents. What she said was that it would "be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust", which claims that Holocaust Memorial Day doesn't commemorate ALL genocide victims rather than that it only commemorates Jewish Holocaust ones. In actual fact, the UK Holocaust Memorial Day, unlike, say, the American version, does only commemorate victims of a limited number of genocides, the result of a political fudge which was justified on the grounds that to do otherwise would "weaken the message". Reliable sources are ones with a reputation for fact checking and are determined by consensus. As shown by the example, the Jewish Chronicle's reporting of the Labour antisemitism crisis has been, to put it mildly, pretty shaky as far as fact checking is concerned. I think therefore that it should not be regarded as a very reliable source in this case.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)  {as an illustration of how editorial bias affects newspaper articles, Robert Fisk's 2011 Independent article explaining why he left the Times is worth reading ... especially for the section on the USS Vincennes}

Siting the detail of Corbyn's associations before he became leader
There has been some discussion on Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn about whether coverage of his associations with allegedy antisemitic individuals prior to him becoming leader is sufficiently significant to be covered in detail in that article. Currently, it is on both his article and this one. Which of the two articles do people think the full detail of this should be in? Thanks, Jontel (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It relates to both topics, so it should be in both articles. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it does relate to both topics. However, I thought it would save time and space if the detail was in one article, while the other article had a summary of the material and a link to the other article. Jontel (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's appropriate for it to be in both places. Space is not an issue as per WP:NOTPAPER.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Total space, no. Space per article, yes. Your WP:NOTPAPER says 'Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility'. :) Jontel (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure... a useful tool is to create a separate sub-article specifically to contain relevant detail so as to summarise in the main article(s)... Do you think there is enough material to do that justice?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Probably not in this case. It will sort itself out as the articles grow and change, as they are live topics with future developments! Jontel (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One can leave all of the excruciatingly silly details of the rumour-mongering and Chinese whispering campaign here (which is how his most recent biographer  Richard Seymour treats it (he contextualizes it pp.180-186 as a kick-on from prior campaigns to delegitimize C's candidacy on the claim he is friendly with terrorists). The Corbyn page will stick to the gist, since a BLP page can't have 20% of its content dominated by an innuendo trail of pure speculation by Corbyn's enemies within and outside the party, on a single issue, that he might or might not be hostile to one of 6,000 ethnic groups. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits against RfC consensus
In a series of edits yesterday - Per rfc.2 comedians, Per RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk, Per RfC.6 Norman Finkelstein, Per RfC.8 Sedley I attempted to implement the consensus, as I understood it, in 's closes of said RfCs. These were then reverted by with the edit rationale of "i can't see consensus for removal". What exactly is unclear in the RfC closures? Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The best faith way characterization I have been able to come up with to that revert rationale was that I found it bizarre. I had been holding off in hopes that would come and explain but after looking at the changes in comparison to the RfC a second time, I am going to jump in and say that Icewhiz seems to have removed exactly what was proposed to be removed by those four RfCs and for which consensus was explicitly found to exclude. None of those four had any sort of further discussion required to implement the consensus. I am happy, as I did above, to explain my thinking behind the closure, but would love to hear from RevertBob over what his thinking with that revert was. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have undone the reversion, as per the RFC. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Finkelstein material in the Rebuttals section seems to be back/still there, despite clear conclusion of the RfC to remove. Can that not go? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I know it's rather late in the day but if I might make a suggestion. Ordering the material by profession and then date and using extensive quotes as currently done will necessarily make the material lengthy. However, I think that there is value in retaining all the sources as this shows the breadth of support for JC etc. Perhaps the rebuttals could be ordered by theme e.g. Israel, media, Conservatives, right wing Labour, JC's character etc.. Each theme could be summarised, perhaps include an example quote, then say that similar sentiments were expressed by A,B,C etc. with references. As many of the points seem similar, that would reduce the length by quite a bit, even if some of the organizations and individuals have to be listed under multiple themes. Jontel (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, can you please explain how you've concluded the Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_7 as no consensus?

RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk 9 Include, 6 exclude, 1 modify

RfC.6 Norman Finkelstein 5 include, 5 exclude

RfC.8 Sedley 4 exclude, 4 include, 2 trim

RevertBob (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Determining consensus is not just a headcount. Policy also matters as does the thinking behind the votes - this might help lead to a consensus that is not just apparent by a strict headcount (as was the trim consensus from RfC 7). For me RfCs 6 and 8 were pretty straight forward. Editors were split about the correct course of action, with roughly equivalent weight of policy and procedure behind them, and so there was no consensus. RfC 4 was trickier. In the end the people who argued include, besides one editor, did not address how the source was reliable where as the excludes made a policy based argument for why it wasn't. This meant that the slightly more weight to the balance aspect of including (or trimming) were not overridden by this concern. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC) This article is not on my watchlist so please ping me if you have further questions.


 * OK, regarding RfC 4, I can't see anyone arguing that the Morning Star isn't a reliable source and there's an RfC here which confirms that it is, therefore, should the content sourced from MS not be included? RevertBob (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an RS, to be used with some care. I would prefer, if the option was there, to use a "quality" news source... ie. mainstream broadsheet/ex-broadsheet, but I would certainly rather use it than the Daily Mail. Worth bearing in mind though that these groups are rather small and that one is not a UK group.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The MS here has been used in context of providing a neutrally worded response of these groups to the allegations which ultimately provides balance. The absence of this sentence makes the paragraph one-sided. Also, the size or location of these groups are irrelevant, what's relevent is if they're notable which they certainly are. RevertBob (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but looking at the RFC in question, I would stick to the decision.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is responding to your comments and arguing that the Morning Star is a RS of which content should be included. By the way, the community has deemed the Daily Mail unreliable because of its inaccurate reporting. The Morning Star doesn't have this luxury as it can't afford to get sued being a cooperative with limited funds. Thanks for your opinion but I think User:Barkeep49 can speak for himself/herself. RevertBob (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Calm down fella... it's my job as an admin to act as an intermediary/moderator in matters like this. I'm stepping back from editing on this article now I have a feeling for its dynamics and will only participate as a sysop and on the talk page.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue was not with the the Morning Star being a RS or not. The issue was whether the opinions themselves would provide undue balance/coverage/promotion of views. You clearly felt differently but it's not how I read the consensus when considering all factors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, just to be clear are you saying that the following sentence sourced from the Morning Star:


 * The joint editorial was condemned by three Jewish groups, namely the Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Peace, with the Jewish Socialists Group describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria".


 * From your interpretation of the RfC consensus is an opinion would provide undue balance/coverage/promotion of views? RevertBob (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * from my interpretation of the RFC consensus is that there was no consensus to include that sentence (and the accompanying citations). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinions on inclusion solicited
Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party should, I feel, include examples of the type of antisemitism experienced by Labour party members, particularly MPs. Here are some examples relating specifically to Ruth Smeeth MP (received 25,000 messages of this nature): Opinions?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I do think this is about antisemitism expressed BY LP members. While LP members can experience antisemitism from anyone, that would fit in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. So, the question is who is making these comments? Where criminal prosecutions are successful, they are often of far right individuals - see Luciana Berger. When the LP analysed submitted complaints, they found that one third of all incidents and two thirds of dossiers - presumably the more serious incidents - came from non LP members, even though they may be or appear to be left wing. So, I would suggest that examples are restricted to those confirmed as originating from LP members. It would be good if we had clear examples of hatred of jews, rather than ones involving Israel, or forwarding of images without clearly offensive comment, where the individual can dispute their intent. Finally, I think the tabloids are not treated as reliable sources Potentially unreliable sources, so sticking to the quality press is better. Jontel (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Tabloids are actually okay to use with care. Where they add substance without being the sole reference used we should be okay. I've been doing this for quite a long time and am reasonably well acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * I don't think we can ignore the antisemitism directed at MPs, as it is clearly pertinent to a major event, particularly the resignation of Labour MPs including Luciana Berger and the formation of the Independent Group. In her case, the abuse was certainly coming from Labour Party members. She had been subjected to some revolting behaviour from her local CLP and one of them, Kenneth Campbell (who proposed one of the motions of no confidence in her) is at least under investigation for antisemitism, if not already suspended.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some relevant references:


 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And just to clarify what is antisemitism as defined by the IHRA (adopted in full by the Labour Party):  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (Sorry for bombarding you with info by the way!  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
 * Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
 * Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
 * Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
 * Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
 * Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
 * Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
 * Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
 * Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
 * Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
 * Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.


 * The IHRA working definition doesn't say that those ARE examples of antisemitism, it says that they are examples of how antisemitism, depending on the context, MAY be expressed.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IHRA definition is helpful here. We are not the Labour Party but an encyclopedia with our own page on antisemitism. The page is also very bloated already, and we don't want to include every incident of antisemitism with some relationship with the Party, but rather ones noteworthy enough to get significant coverage. In the second set of bullet points, it looks to me like most of the reports relate to essentially the same thing: the harassment of Luciana B. I wonder if the more sensible solution would be one or two sentences expanding on her departure from the party with footnotes of these cases, but without excessive detail about each one? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Smeeth story is clearly noteworthy based on the number of articles, but it is not clear that the perpetrator is a Labour member, so would be a bit risky including it here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the matter, is this a Labour supporter, and has this been proved.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to distinguish in any text between Labour Party members, who the LP should discipline, and others, whom the LP has no authority over. Jontel (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we limited by antisemitism perpetrated by Labour Party members/supporters or are we including antisemitism experienced by labour members? Both seem relevant to me and I would expect to see, say, Islamophobic abuse directed towards conservative politicians (just to be topical) included in an article about Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The title is "in", so yes, it is antisemitism within (not directed at) the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slatersteven. We have an article about antisemitism in the UK, and noteworthy incidents not relevant to this article might be relevant there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue and recentism of incidents involving non-notable figures
There appears to be undue balance recently added of including individual incidents involving non-notable figures with no long-term lasting significance which were removed long ago to make the article encyclopedic about wider topic in the party rather than an attack page with list of individual incidents. RevertBob (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All inclusions were well referenced with WP:RS. Maybe we should just say it doesn't exist?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all of these incidents are noteworthy - they have RSs and involve people holding office in the party. However, they don't deserve their own sections. One sentence plus footnotes each in the chronological section is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm compiling them at the moment for a separate article specifically dealing with "allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party", with an NPOV take on things. Within this one I think you're right... single sentence coverage with a link to the more detailed article.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice that among other incidents deleted in recent edits were those relating to Roy Smart and Laura Stuart. I think those are noteworthy too and were adequately sourced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Long quotes about the IHRA definition of antisemitism
The Working definition of antisemitism section contains several long (3 or 4 sentences) quotes from people not involved in the dispute and mostly not referenced from sources which refer to the dispute. This compares to the quote from the mainstream British Jewish groups which is only a single sentence. Should we include these quotes at all, and if so, should they be trimmed? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is an important discussion as it gets to the heart of the issue i.e. navigating anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Also, this is what made the issue take off, to some extent. It is a long section because there were several stages: I count: criticism of the original working definition of antisemitism - three quotes; proposing Labour's revised definition - three quotes; criticism of the revised definition - five quotes from those supporting the original definition; defence of the revised definition - four quotes. The quotes are written by academics and other experts, so tend to be reasoned arguments. So, those are the grounds for keeping them. There is some duplication which could be trimmed but it would need to be done carefully. Jontel (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have always found it odd that this section was at one point (it may still be) was larger then the parent article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Example 1. Sedley: In May 2017, former Court of Appeal judge Stephen Sedley said: "Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation."

Example 2. Bindman: Human rights solicitor Geoffrey Bindman said: "The Labour party's new code of conduct on antisemitism does not set out all the IHRA examples as if they were rules set in stone (as they were never meant to be). The code seeks to establish that antisemitism cannot be used as a pretext for censorship without evidence of antisemitic intent. This is entirely in line with the recommendations of the all-party Commons home affairs select committee in October 2016 that the IHRA definition should only be adopted if qualified by caveats making clear that it is not antisemitic to criticise the Israeli government without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent... Far from watering down or weakening it, Labour's code strengthens it by addressing forms of discrimination that the IHRA overlooked... The attacks on the new code, including those by some Labour MPs and a number of rabbis, are baffling. One has to wonder if all these people have read the code or indeed the IHRA press release. This omission only serves to protect Israel from legitimate criticism."

Example 3. Lerman: Writer and scholar of antisemitism Antony Lerman said: "...Jewish leaders have, in their uncompromising reaction to the NEC's new code, responded by doubling down on the sanctity of the IHRA definition. They claim exclusive rights to determine what is antisemitism, potentially putting Jewish sentiment, and unwittingly the sentiment of any minority group, above the law of the land." Lerner later stated that "...the fundamental principle that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned, not tinkered with" and "The answer to hate speech is more speech. Not suppression of offensive views. I can only see full NEC adoption of the entire, deeply flawed IHRA definition achieving the latter, not encouraging the former."

Example 4. Klug: Philosopher and scholar of antisemitism Brian Klug said: "...it is not true to say that the NEC rejects the IHRA 'working definition'. On the contrary, it endorses it and incorporates it – prominently – in its Code. It does, however, depart from the IHRA document in certain other respects, including the 'examples' it gives." He added: "...the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what 'might' and 'could' manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour's code says its examples are 'likely' to be deemed antisemitic. This shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines." He concluded: "It is a working definition with working examples. It is a living document, subject to revision and constantly needing to be adapted to the different contexts in which people apply its definition. This is the spirit in which the drafters of Labour's code have approached their task.... But people of goodwill who genuinely want to solve the conundrum – combating antisemitism while protecting free political speech – should welcome the code as a constructive initiative, and criticise it constructively."

None of these have secondary sources as far as I can see. The Sedley quote is already covered in the main article and I think the others should be removed or significantly trimmed down. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2, 3 and 4 all are about the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you trying to achieve by advocating the trimming of this section? How will it make the article better? Can you be explicit? Jontel (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotes are about the Labour party, but not by people involved in the dispute, so it is WP:UNDUE to give them so much space, especially when compared to the mainstream Jewish groups. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is independent third party. By the way, how are Howard Jacobson or Simon Sharma involved? We have a lots of opinions by people who are not involved, that is what we mean by independent third party.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we should keep them short and not include lots of them at the expense of people who are actually involved. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not getting this, it is far better we quote the opinion of people who are not involved.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded constructively by trimming it quite a lot, mainly through tighter expression and cutting the odd phrase. However, I think the commentators are relevant and should be retained. Of the five, four are Jewish. Two are antisemitism experts. Three are judges, barristers or solicitors, specialising in human rights law. One was a director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research. They are all hugely experienced and eminent in their fields. They are just the sort of people that the Labour Party would have consulted and who can provide informed opinions. The piece also includes quotes from the Labour Party and from Jewish community organizations and their supporters. It should not be a matter of 50/50 space for pro and anti but of ensuring the key points on all sides are expressed. If the Jewish groups are saying important things that you think have been left out, you can add that.Jontel (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a good start, but I think the quotes are still too long. I think that we should focus on what actually happened, with short quotes to give context. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to provide some commentary and opinions where competing options were discussed, but I have cut it back quite a bit more. I've taken out Hodge's comment, as I think it is unnecessary, but put it back if you like. Jontel (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it back in - I think an MP calling her own party leader an antisemitic racist is worthy of at least one sentence. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotes are about the Labour Party and from scholars of antisemitism and jurists, therefore, obviously relevant. Removing the quotes reduces the article quality. RevertBob (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree this needed trimming and thanks to Jontel for making a start. There is too much opinion and commentary, often either quoted verbatim or paraphrased at length, in this article. This section takes up quite a large proportion of the article, with commentary constituting quite a lot of the word count. The section "Revised working definition" is good, because it clearly states what happened in what sequence. The "Criticism of the working definition" and "Defence of revised definition" sections, and, to a lesser extent, "Criticism of revised definition" are more or less just streams of opinions that got little secondary coverage, without any sense of what makes them relevant. Why, for example, do we report the opinions of Tony Lerman but not of David Hirsh or David Rich, who also wrote opinion pieces around the same time? We should simply axe all the opinion pieces, and keep organisational statements, statements by NEC members and MPs, the sort of thing that gets reported in the news, but not opinion pieces. Especially as these arguments are rehearsed in the IHRA WD article, where people can go if they are interested in the criticism and defence of the definition. (Also, it doesn't matter if the commentators are Jewish, although recognised expertise on antisemitism is a count in favour, although an opinion piece is still an opinion piece.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Identification of people in Mear One mural.
I'm not convinced. None of the figures look anything like Andrew Carnegie. Aleister Crowley... presumably the bald character... again, doesn't look like him. JP Morgan... again, which one is he supposed to be?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The painter's alleged intentions are irrelevant. All RSes agree the imagery used antisemitic tropes (regardless of whether some figures were or were not supposed to be Jewish). We would do well to focus on expert opinions on tue mural, e.g. Lipstadt's published book, while ignoring the painter's FRINGE views.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was also sourced to a non-reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lipstadt is simply wrong about the mural looking like Nazi propaganda. Look at der Sturmer online and you will see. She has a history on commenting on British current affairs, which sits ill with someone who is supposed to be a dispassionate historian. Moreover, her views are irrelevant here. Corbyn says he did not look closely at the Facebook post. How can she help with that? If it is asserted that he ought to have seen that this small image was antisemitic, because any normal person would, then it is the views of other British people that should be consulted, not an expert, who is bound to see things that others would not. And she has been forewarned and is studying it, whereas he did not know there was an issue. Jontel (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is off-topic, but should this article really be going into that detail at all about the individuals, even if it were RSed? Seems like it would be more relevant on the Freedom for Humanity page, if anywhere. The mural section of this article seems far too long as it is, especially considering the mural has its own article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Lipstadt is a recognized expert in the field writing in a published setting. Your opinion that Corbyn only briefly looked at the painting is irrelevant as a personal opinion (as well as being a bad arguement - if he did not look - his defense of a mural decried as antisemitic was highly careless). RSes clearly see support for an antisemitic mural as a rather "big deal".Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. I don't think you are getting this, even though you keep editing it. Corbyn did not defend it. He asked why it was being removed. He did not know it was decried as antisemitic. That was why he asked why it was being removed. RS are making a big deal of it because they don't want him in government, not because a six year old post saying "Why?" is really scandalous. Jontel (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - I am uncertain over your assertion regarding RSes here. Surely the BBC, Guardian, NYT, etc. are reliable and unbiased, no?Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lipstadt is RS, though Icewhiz is ignoring that the book cites her letter or address to some Oxford students and, as one would expect from an offhand comment, it shows no awareness of the nitty-gritty. She is not writing as an historian in the text cited. The sources that do provide us with researched details are Elmer and Pitt. Elmer is not npersuaded it is anti-Semitic. Pitt gives strong evidence that Mear One was directly influenced by an anti-Semitic writer. The silly thing here is that Icewhiz has removed Pitt on technical grounds when Pitt actually supports, with far more intelligence than Lipstadt musters in her letter, the verdict that the mural was anti-Semitic. In any case, per NPOV we are not supposed to be adjudicating whose interpretation is right or wrong. The sources say it was claimed to be anti-Semitic (b) denied to be anti-Semitic. Just write what the sources state, both sides of the issue. Has everybody forgotten the basics here? Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No one of political consequence in the issue has denied it was antisemitic. Corbyn apologized, stating it was. Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'No one of political consequence'. Jeezus Christ? Are you aware of what policy requires of editors? This is not a place for citing only the views of people of 'political consequence'. No one in the real world asks politicians for their interpretations of art, unless they are bullshit artists.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Corbyn himself agrees that the image is antisemitic, and that he wouldn't have posted it if he had seen the full detail, is pretty relevant though. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I addressed the claims that all reliable sources agree that the mural is antisemitic and that the artist's explanationis irrelevant in this comment on the Corbyn article talkpage. This webpage details who those portrayed in the mural are and the order in which they appear.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  22:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I still would contend that those caricatures are in no way "spot on". And the argument that the pyramid might not be something to do with the New World Order conspiracy theory (and therefore nothing to do with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and antisemitism) is somewhat weakened by by the explicit reference to the New World Order at the bottom left of the mural.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The pyramid is on the dollar, so it fits with the monopoly board and bankers. Neither are New World Order theories antisemitic per se. Jontel (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were integral to the development of the conspiracy theory.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Go read a work like Barry Coward, Julian Swann (eds.) Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the French Revolution, Taylor & Francis, 2017. Any number of movements identified a Jesuit cabal, Popery, or freemasons or various other groups of engaging in a conspiracy against nations. This long preceded the specific version that emerged against Jews in the 1860s to then crystallise in the Protocols. Internet is crammed with the old Jesuit conspiracy theory, it's just that we don't fuss over it, or whip up Catholic or Protestant hysteria on the levels you get here, with 85% of British Jews now convinced the Labour Party is 'rife with Jew-hatred' when the party's own internal investigations have only managed to identify or weed out 56 people among 600,000 members (0.1%) as having antisemitic ideas. Pure lunacy, a rerun of the Salem witch trials, if not McCarthyism.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been the trawling through years of Labour members' social media activity, some in closed groups or private discussions. There has been the systematic recording of meetings. Perhaps hundreds of dossiers on individual members have been prepared and sent to Labour, the police, the EHRC etc. There has been the obtaining of reaction quotes, the commissioning of opinion polls and the briefing of the media. Organizations have been set up. It's all quite impressive. Maybe there is a place for a section on these efforts, but getting RS would be a challenge. Literally seeking to purge thousands of members "Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled." Jontel (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Catfish Jim said "integral to the development" not "integral to the emergence of". The Protocols are obviously a key text in the development of conspiracy theories. Anyway, this talk page seems to have become something of a forum. What are the bits of text being argued over here, as it isn't clear? My view of the section is that it is rather long, given it has its own page. I would trim away opinions from it, including Karen Pollock's, Jeremy Gilbert's (which has no secondary source, and there's no reason why we quote him) and JVL's (or at least trim JVL's down to one sentence instead of the current seven). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we need to focus on how the mural connects with Labour, which is that Corbyn did not see it as antisemitic when he saw it in a Facebook post. There seem to be three theories as to why that is the case: he did not look closely at it, he is not sensitive to what is antisemitic, and it is not noticeably antisemitic. If we could express this as briefly as possibly, it would improve the article. I think the demonstration is about much more than the mural and it is useful to hear the full views of the two sides. However, we do not need quotes for everything and paraphrasing their views would reduce them considerably. Jontel (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The irony is that the bit of text I had been concerned about appears to have been removed as I was posting my original query here.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  17:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
I reverted this as it was counter to established RfC consensus in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7 and Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7. In addition removing the long standing content on Fields on the basis of "AS not mentioned as reason" when the first cited source is [Frank Field resigns Labour whip over antisemitism crisis, Guardian is counter factual. I restored academic sourcing present in the STABLE version of the article, which was removed on OR grounds - diff - "Irrelevant - this is only about Corbyn not looking long enough at a Facebook post - not the artist or mural per se" - the source clearly addresses the topic, and even if the OR assertion were true - then content was removed here unevenly, retaining a fringe opinion. I also removed this as it was sourced in its entirety to [[Media Lens]] - a small highly POVish website with 2 writers which is not a RS and is UNDUE regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty to the first and third of these. On Jacobson, the reasons I gave for removing his statement on the Chakrabarti inquiry were not mentioned in the RfC discussion. These were that he was simply echoing the Board of Deputies, so pointless duplication, and that his saying that the inquiry had not spoken to very many (Jewish organizations) ignores the written submissions they all made, leaving a misleading impression. You could also say that an author being interviewed in the Jewish Chronicle which covers the topic obsessively is not very notable. It feels like we are stuffing the article with negative commentary. On Corbyn and the mural, he says that he did not see any problem with it when it came to him on Facebook, but now accepts that it was anti-Semitic. The reason(s) for his initial reaction is not provable, so I question the justification for spending 735 words on it. I note the notice at the top of the article, and am trying to make it more balanced. However, many changes are reverted without discussion or explanation. Should I put more through the talk page? Jontel (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jontel - you are making alot of changes. Big changes. Small steps would be better. As for the mural - it was clearly a major incident, and we generally prefer academic sources written at some distance to the event over media sources. Jacobson was discussed in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7- the content in question was the bit you removed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Facebook groups technical terminology
I think it’s important that the terminology on the Facebook group sections is clear to non-users. I am seeking permission for changes, therefore. Can we call them “restricted access” which is a term that is used and I think is more elegant than “non-public” and less loaded/ more accurate than “closed or “secret”? Again, can we talk about “user posts” rather than “messages” which is not the official term and might suggest person to person communication, or “content” which is vague about what it is and sounds like it might be posted by the group administrators, like a blog or website? Finally, can we talk about user posts in the groups “attacking” e.g. Arkush rather than “targeting”, which could be inferred as sending him messages? Thanks, Jontel (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Posts on private facebook groups". That should be sufficient. "Attacking" or "criticising" is less ambiguous than "targeting"... obviously depends on context.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  13:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Useful reference from Alliance for Workers Liberty
This article has some interesting insight from Jon Lansman, founder and chair of Momentum.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Tony Greenstein recently wrote this blog piece about the AWL.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm... do you think the AWL article is not an accurate portrayal of Lansman's POV?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you explain the thinking which underlies your question? I'm very uncertain about why you would think that I might think that something written by Jon Lansman doesn't represent Lansman's point of view. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  23:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure... I was wondering if you thought the source was not reliable (and therefore not usable) based on Greenstein's dismissal of the AWL. Of course, he's been expelled from Labour for alleged antisemitism and probably doesn't represent a mainstream view.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't question it's reliability as a record of what Lansman said during and interview with Solidarity. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia   22:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The interview is interesting and would be a reliable source for Lansman's opinions, but I think we have enough opinions in this article and should try to make it as fact-based as possible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Views on the Chakrabarti report
I personally don’t think the Chakrabarti report is particularly good, but of course it is the spread of RS views that matters, not mine. The article currently has two comments on the report, both very negative. There were some more nuanced comments when it came out. [] [] [] May I include a couple from RS to allow a fuller range of opinion from significant organizations? Jontel (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point (Chakrabarti being back in 2016) - we should focus on retrospective (e.g. 2018-9) assessment of Chakrabarti from a SECONDARY viewpoint as opposed to at the time opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see that is often a good approach. Here, though, views changed markedly with her subsequent appointment to the House of Lords as a result of the honours list arising from Cameron’s unexpected resignation. The insinuations around that, which are in both the current comments, made an objective response from commentators difficult. That is why I think it is appropriate to capture the immediate response as well as the different later one. Jontel (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly her subsequent peerage affected the assessment of the inquiry, however that does not mean we should seek less informed PRIMARYish accounts from when this came out (which at best, dubious at that, would reflect the manner it was received when it came out). e.g. - "The rising tide of anti-Jewish hatred in the Labour Party necessitated Corbyn initiating an investigation into itself. The 2016 Chakrabarti Inquiry is now remembered more for the fact that the “impartial” Shami Chakrabarti joined the Labour Party once her investigation commenced, and was promoted by Corbyn to the House of Lords—the only Labour-nominated peer in that year—shortly after the completion of her “independent” work. Her conclusion, naturally, suggested that British Jews have nothing to fear from the Labour Party on the anti-Semitic front. Whew!McCann, Daryl. "Jeremy Corbyn and the moral Perils of Anti-Zionism." Quadrant 62.11 (2018): 37.. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One theory is that Chakrabarti was elevated to the HoL so that she could be appointed shadow Attorney-General, but this is speculation. That is why she was the only nominated peer. As I understand it, the opportunity for her to enter the House of Lords was unexpected and, but for Cameron's resignation, would not have happened till the following January. At the moment, the article only has dismissive comments about the report from a comic novelist and a link to a three sentence allegation of corruption from the BoD. McCann calls Corbyn "deeply sinister... and a total idiot” and refers to a "rising tide of antisemitism" and "pro-Palestinian fanatics" so I don't see this as a reputable source. I'm not seeking to replace the current comments but I do think comments actually engaging with the report's recommendations would add balance and understanding. Certainly, they should come from respected individuals or organizations. Jontel (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have produced a draft of the expanded section, as an illustration. Jontel (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chakrabarti wasn't, of course, working in isolation. Other members of the inquiry included the two vice-charis, Janet Royall and David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (likely the UK's most important centre for the study of Antisemitism). David Feldman had this to say when the inquiry's report was published:  “This is an important document at a time, when more than ever, we need to stand firm against all forms of racism and intolerance. The report marks a positive step towards ensuring that the Labour Party is a welcoming place for all minority groups. It recommends steps to ensure that members act in a spirit of tolerance and respect, while maintaining principles of free speech and open debate. The recommendations are constructive and provide a sound basis on which the Party can move forward.”  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)