Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Mass reverts

It's best to get consensus before blanking large sections of well-referenced text... but it was obvious it was going to happen and who was going to do it (after viewing arbcom decisions from a few months ago). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See Previous section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to. I think the removed content should stay, albeit in a trimmed down form - such as a single subsection with a single sentence for each councillor. The fact that they are/were councillors makes them more notable than an average member. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I was testing the waters slightly to see how the additions would be treated and wasn't shocked. They are certainly notable... I would be extremely surprised if someone who was elected as a local councillor could not satisfy WP:GNG, but the major notability is in their combined effect. There are a lot more examples of elected Labour Councillors who have been suspended and investigated for anti-semitism... probably more than can be comfortably included within this article... perhaps a dedicated page should be set up. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are that many, we could indeed create a page. Perhaps you could start a list in your sandbox? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, maybe... starting it live would probably be more complicated than most of the articles I've created Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This tells you the approximate number of cases you might expect to find.     ←   ZScarpia   23:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC) (also see: BBC - Labour: 673 anti-Semitism complaints in 10 months, 11 February 2019)

And next up ...

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

---

... Asa Winstanley: Electronic Intifada - Ali Abunimah - Labour Party investigates Electronic Intifada journalist, 11 March 2019. A view from Miko Peled.     ←   ZScarpia   19:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I.e. anyone in the Labour Party who dares mention what is thoroughly documented by Israeli scholarship, Amnesty International, the World Bank, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem etc.etc., will be held hostage if not suspended as an anti-Semite. I can see little evidence here among editors, that they are quibbling over minor p's and q's when the whole syntax of this absurd media indictment is a rerun of The Crucible, with the added irony that the mechanisms of McCarthyism were those earlier employed by Nazi anti-Semitic witchhunters. When I was a kid, people took the message there seriously. Now the left is abdicating on what little commonsense remains of its traditions.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What was he expecting? You can't go around accusing jews of being a proxy for the Israeli Embassy just because they disagree with Corbyn. You can't tweet that Israel is a racist endeavour and not expect to be censured for it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you can, at least in a democracy. And please refrain from the sickening habit of always interpreting some objection to what one or several Jews might be engaged in, as a generic attack on 'Jews'. That rhetorical trick is behind 90% of the bullshit in this hysterical reportage. Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

[EC] Your first second sentence is inaccurate and, as it is about a living person, infringes WP:BLP somewhat. Winstanley was writing about the Jewish Labour Movement specifically, not Jews in general as your sentence implies. And his reasons for describing the JLM, in the words of the Jewish Chronicle, as a "proxy for the Israeli Government" go a bit deeper than their "disagreement" with Corbyn. As talkpages are specifically for discussing the contents of the article, I won't comment on your second third sentence except to say that there's a difference between being censured by those who disagree with you and being suspended. Would it have been right if those accusing the Labour Party of being "institutionally antisemitic", a similar claim, had been suspended?     ←   ZScarpia   11:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (corrected sentence count:     ←   ZScarpia  )

There's no BLP infringement there as I think it was fairly clear that I was referring to the JLM, but if you feel it wasn't, I'm clarifying that now. The linked article is a prime example of paranoid conspiracy theorising.

Winstanley tweeted that "The state of Israel is a racist endevour [sic]" on the very day that Labour adopted the IHRA antisemitism definition in full, when they stated that the example of "claiming that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour" was indeed antisemitic. He knew what he was doing. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if the incorrect sentence count caused confusion. The second sentence, beginning, "You can't go around ... ," is referring to the JLM? It's hard, given the sentence it follows, to see how. The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism does not, as you claim, state that "claiming that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour" IS antisemitic. In the introduction to the examples, it says that, as a guide, they MAY serve as illustrations and then, in outlining possible contemporary examples, "COULD, taking into account the overall context, include."     ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd have though it obvious given the context, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for the benefit of the ignoranti who drafted the IHRA I should write up a full page on Arthur Ruppin, who had high respect for Nazi racial theorists and was the 'architect of Jewish colonization' in Palestine. That doesn't mean Israel is a racist state: but racial thinking played a fundamental role, as any Israeli historian will tell you.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum nor the medium to post your essays. Perhaps during your retirement from Wikipedia, you've forgotten this. Alssa1 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course. At the same time, it is intensely tedious to see so much impulsive POV pushing on a highly contentious topic by editors who appear to know nothing of the larger background and context, and a timely brief reminder to those who do so to study the topic in more depth is not unhelpful (though admittedly somewhat futile).Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice bait. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I think it's fair to say that without reliable sources to justify what you say, this is little more than a forum for you. Alssa1 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alssa1: ... this is not a forum. Please try to keep to the subject ... and stop resorting to pointless comments about other editors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bodney: I enjoy irony as much as the next man, but this is silly. Alssa1 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Administrative close Discussion closed as against WP:NOTFORUM Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Media Lens

User:Icewhiz removed the content I had added from the Media Lens website the other day stating "Media Lens (two guys with a website) is WP:UNDUE and not a WP:RS - take it to talk." so I am. This RS discussion about the website seemed to indicate a broad view that as long as it was correctly attributed then using it is not in violation of any policy. As for the UNDUE argument, well as the authors of the website are winners of the Gandhi International Peace Award, I would argue that that gives their views sufficient weight to be included, so long as it is correctly attributed. G-13114 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Small fringe website run by two guys. Not a RS - though sure - Media Lens is a RS for Media Lens' opinion - which are UNDUE. Considering that antisemitism in Labour has been covered by top line RSes - the self published opinion of two guys with a website is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion, they aren't just 'two guys' they are recipients of a prestigious international peace award, and their website is well known within journalistic circles and has been commented on by some of the most notable names in UK journalism, to dismiss them as fringe is not justifiable in my opinion. G-13114 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's probably not much of an exagerration to say that WP:UNDUE is being cited to obliterate as much as possible of the case for the defence, a large element of which, as outlined in the Media Lens article, is the mis-reporting and disinformation contained in the conventional news media (see the Media Reform Coalition report). The defence case tends to be articulated by individuals and organisations. Most of the reporting in the conventional news sources is highly partisan to various degrees, a result, probably, of their having a viewpoint out of sympathy with the current leftwing, pro-Palestinan views of Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum and individual MPs who now have more power than previously. A neutral approach would recognise the partisan and counter-factual quality of much of the conventional reporting and that it forms a viewpoint rather than a balanced and accurate statement of fact. Instead, we have the insistence on the reliability of those sources. To add insult to injury, while excluding defence case opinions as fringe, we also have the inclusion of individual opinions where the conform to the prosecution case on the grounds that those individuals are experts or notable. I suppose that those who are, in effect, trying to obliterate the defence case don't view the situation in terms of pro and contra viewpoints, but in terms of what is true (the prosecution case) and what is a fringe aberration. Practising "writing for the opponent" is the ideal. Most editors fall short to various degrees. Those who fall short most severely strangle attempts to include a fair account of the opposition case.     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Media studies in Great Britain, note that (a) newspaper concentration in corporate hands is very high (b) the press is very conservative (c) and hostile to the Labour Party under Corbyn]. This obviously creates problems for an NPOV representation of the facts regarding the present topic, many of which are consistently elided on specious policy grounds. WP:Undue is, as often, being used as an expunge anything incompatible with the POV one desires to dominant the page, at the expense of nuanced, multi-angled coverage, according to the proportion accorded parties to the dispute. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As it is asserted that media interest in this topic has been particularly intensive, extended and largely partisan; and as the media along with many national Labour politicians and Jewish press and organisations has been central to the pattern of repeated attacks on the reputation and position of a series of activists; and as their approach has been to uses the results of often surreptitious investigations of individuals; the media's pattern of activity and approach does seem relevant to the topic, as it speaks to why the topic is deemed notable. They are unlikely to critique themselves, so I think there is a role for media analysis in this topic. To speak plainly, even the media deemed RS have their own motives and constraints and should not be treated in every case as neutral or without agency. Jontel (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz - it is a RS only for showing the opinions of the editors. If the research was notable, it would be covered in more reliable sources, whether by the media or academic sources. Until that point, I think it is UNDUE to include it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It won't be covered by the media which they are critiquing, that's the point. I would argue that Media Lens is of sufficient status to make their views notable for the reason I've already given. G-13114 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

'If the research was notable'. It usually takes several years for research to percolate down into RS. By this criterion, Gregor Mendel's research would never have registered on a 19th century Wikipedia because it took 4 decades for scientists to realize it was a major breakthrough. Most of the newspaper crap here will not show up in future books: it will survive despite WP:Recentism because people google newspapers for quick 'takes' that rarely deliver what scholarship does. One doesn't need some local newspaper to validate a reasoned paper of analytical quality. That is getting hold of things by the wrong end of the handle.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, people are constantly calling for analytical work of good quality to be used as references rather than low quality sensationalist newspaper coverage. And here we have precisely that, by two authors of high standing who have won a prestigious peace award. G-13114 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended, but this discussion makes me want to invoke WP:COMPETENCE. An astonishing time is spent claiming Media Lens is credible because it has won a "prestigious" award. The award in question is so unknown that its wikipage is tagged for lacking references. I'm not saying the award is not a good thing, but it's hardly a major, well-known award. The fact of the matter is, as users have pointed out, that this is a blog run by two guys convinced that the "mainstream media is lying". So in short: a non-notable blog by two conspiracy theorists, who have not won any major award. Of course it is WP:UNDUE. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeppiz is technically correct, as often. What they argue is, however, in other sources, i.e., to cite one: Norman G. Finkelstein The chimera of British anti-Semitism (and how not to fight it if it were real) Mondoweiss 19 August 2018, and when one has this kind of alternative, there is no need to press for including the former. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Media Lens's work has been mentioned by the BBC, [1][2][3], by the Huffington Post,[4] by The Guardian, [5][6][7], the New Statesman, [8][9][10] the New Internationalist, [11][12] among others, to dismiss them as 'a non-notable blog' when their work has been mentioned by some of the largest UK media organisations is not in my view a credible claim. I'm thinking this issue might need an RFC. G-13114 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of those are blogs and op-eds. Some are..... Very unfavorable. e.g. - A cracked lens, Guardian. or this BBC piece about Media Lens' e-mail tactics: "One of Medialens' less ingratiating habits is to suggest to their readers that they contact me at peter.barron@bbc.co.uk to complain about things we've done, so after every controversial episode I get hundreds of e-mails from sometimes less-than-polite hommes engages - they're almost always men - most of whom don't appear to have watched the programme.". Hardly.... An endorsement of a source for us to use. There's much more of coverage of Breitbart News and Veterans Today in mainstream media - doesn't mean we'd include them in a Wikipedia article. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're into cherry picked statements, the same article you quote also states In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right.. However your personal view on their activities doesn't really count as to whether they should be used as a source or not. I think I have verified that they are of sufficient notability to be included in a correctly attributed way. G-13114 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If that's what you think, I fear I must correct you. You have certainly not verified that they are sufficiently noticeable, nor credible. Quite the contrary, you have repeatedly overstated their importance in your previous posts above. Jeppiz (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever Holocaust survivors say is not notable, since they are not notable

extremely non notable and undue, 12 non-notable people writing a letter is not due for inclusion, these are nobody names.

That is extremely offensive, SJ. Had any non-Jewish editor stated that, saying Holocaust survivors testifying to their views about antisemitism are ‘extremely not notable’, it would have rightly created a storm of criticism. Utterly distasteful. Whatever the merits for inclusion or not.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is it offensive? Who are these people? They are non-notable. I'll give you a "for example", there is a video of Holocaust survivors that Dov Hikind put out calling Ilhan Omar antisemitic, is that notable for inclusion into her article? Just being a holocaust survivor does not make you notable to discuss the Labour party in the UK, or Omar. These are fringe views by any standards and they are being used in this case to attack the government's intrusion into the education system of the haredi school system. Also, you are misrepresenting my edit summary, as usual.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor. It doesn't matter who wrote it - if it hasn't been commented on in a SECONDARY fashion outside of the letters section - it is clearly UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Then by your own admission it is due. I.e.

• 12 Shoah survivors pen open letter: ‘Corbyn’s bent over backwards to help Jews’ Jewish News 18 March 2019.

We already have 'In September 2018, an open letter signed by 29 rabbis' (not 'notable'?), but if a dozen Holocaust survivors join the non-notable rabbis in question, unlike the non-notable rabbis, whom we mention, the the former are non-notable given they only survived the, what's was it, oh yeah, the Holocaust, but failed to make a name for themselves.Jeezus. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hold on a minute...

• "At least half of signatories to controversial Sunday Times letter on Labour antisemitism had no idea what it said", Jewish Chronicle, March 20, 2019 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Aha! Mr. Stern again? Stern of the "photo dragging" incident?[13] Seems he's also been covered in the context of using "Kapo" recently.[14] Definitely demonstrates the perils of using a letter to the editor, as, well, the editor doesn't really verify letters to the editor other than seeing it's something he's willing to print. Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Survivor distances himself from Corbyn support letter: 'I made a mistake'", Jewish News, March 19, 2019 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I find myself sympathising with a number points made here, while simultaneously disagreeing with the same editors. In the first instance, whether something is "extremely offensive" is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and the long-established editing principles in which this encyclopedia stands. As an evil right-wing bigot I am offended by many things on Wikipedia, but I'm not going to use my subjective experience as a cudgel to support my own edits/editing position. That being said I do find that a story, published in a reliable source has been removed so haphazardly by Sir Joseph without proper discussion/interrogation of the story. Yes, it could be described as UNDUE on its own; the individuals in question are not academics or experts in the field (as far as I'm aware). If we were to include the information in the stories from the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News (helpfully provided by Catfish Jim) I do think it provides some useful context to the story that makes it worthy of inclusion. Alssa1 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alssa1:I didn't remove a story published in a RS haphazardly. I removed a letter to the editor, following BRD. And as you can continue to read, it is not worthy of inclusion. It was basically a letter pushed into people's hands and they didn't know what they were signing. In addition, a letter to the editor is not notable, and the people who signed it are not notable. That they are defending Labour is not notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: And if the stories are as stated, the actions of individuals like Shraga Stern (along with other previous mentioned UNDUE organisations) could now be included as part of a response by the Labour party (and Labour-associated individuals) to Antisemitism in the organisation. Alssa1 (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so if the Labour Party uses that as a response, and is published in RS then we can use that in this article. But the letter to the editor is not notable and undue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is considered to be a primary source. While the JC and JN articles are better sources, they're talking about the tricking of elderly holocaust survivors into signing a letter they didn't fully understand. At least one of them does not consider themselves to be a "holocaust survivor". The person behind the letter, Shraga Stern, does have form though. He was behind the "letter from 29 rabbis":

• "Charedi rabbis' letter defending Jeremy Corbyn is genuine, insist activists", Jewish Chronicle, September 17, 2018 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mick Davis

Shortly afterwards, Mick Davis, president of the council of members and chairman of the board of trustees of the Jewish Leadership Council of the United Kingdom, the umbrella body of the largest Jewish charities and Institutions in the UK responsible for the strategic imperatives of UK Jewry, and chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Commission of the United Kingdom, became treasurer, and a year later CEO, of the Conservative Party.

How this has anything to do with the topical focus of our page and have thereforer removed it.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

See no issue with removal, I cannot recall this being added and would like to see a justification.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC News

Talking of fast editing (I had to catch the last episode of Il nome della rosa) I made a mistake, in haste, in adding the BBC tag here. My apologies, Icewhiz. And thanks for noticing.

Several Jewish groups, left-wing or religious orthodox, and numerous public intellectuals have disputed the claims

Since it is WP:Lede summary style I think sourcing it was incorrect. It should stand as obvious. All three type are mentioned down the page.

• for religious and Jewish activistsfor academics.

All this is easy to document, but I would prefer not to, since it just means adding a dozen newspaper sources to document what the page documents this, this, this this etc.etc. Any objections to removing the BBC source (wrong) and tag?Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections to removing the BBC in this instance (which doesn't support the content - so obviously an easy removal! Per WP:LEADCITE if facts are in the body - you don't need to cite). I oppose the content as framed. "numerous public intellectuals" is puffery (and there have been numerous on the other side as well - you're basically tallying op-eds). Several Jewish groups is counter factual - a few far-left fringe Jewish groups has disputed this. "religious orthodox" is also incorrect - what we have is Mr. Shraga Stern (of the "strictly orthodox" / Haredi / Ultraorthodox) is organizing various letters (that then get disputed on various grounds - we're discussing this up in the talk page) - while most of the ultraorthodox community opposes him. I would name the Jewish groups supporting Corbyn specifically - which would be primarily JVL and JSG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You could also just do the list in the lead of the Jewish rebuttal section - Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewdas and Independent Jewish Voices. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• 'Numerous public intellectuals' is not puffery, but a fact, as this this source noted of just one instance. Teachers, academics, writers etc of note etc. who go public with their views are public intellectuals, and of over 200 signing here, many fit that profile.
• 'Several Jewish groups is not counterfactual,. for you admit the page mentions people from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewdas and Independent Jewish Voices (=several). It is utterly irrelevant that you regard them as fringe. This is about Jews and anti-Semitism, and if there are groups such as these that we mention in the body of the article, the lead normnally would state 'several Jewish groups' unproblematically.
• "religious orthodox" is also incorrect.'

Well. Someone objected to me called Haredi/Ultraorthodox. So use ultraorthodox. That there are notable groups of ultraorthodox who have registered dissent is in the article.

In all three cases, you note that the article contains all three, but object to the way the sentence is framed. Welòl, tell me how you would reframe it neutrally?Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We're currently running a RfC on inclusion of material from the fringes of the Ultraorthodox community in the article - it's not clear it should be in the article at all. You can find numerous Corbyn supporters (and detractors) of any profession - naming them in the lede (in either direction) is simply puffery. As for the fringe Jewish groups - I suggest you simply name them as far-left Jewish organizations and provide the list - Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewdas and Independent Jewish Voices. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

5 organisations = 'several'. And please drop the 'far-left' jargon. A large number of prominent members of Israel's Likud party are on record as expressing extremist views, but not for that reason do I, or most editors, run round branding them automatically as 'far-right'. Advocacy of human rights is not a 'far-left' thing, or becomes one if, uniquely, the people you desire justice for are Palestinians. A sense of decency is not political. I once stopped 5 thugs from beating up a kid by appealing to their decency.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Haredi consider the term "ultraorthodox" to be a pejorative. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be RSes are using this, and at least outside the UK I've seen self-usage of this. UK - BBC, Telegraph, Guardian. US sources - NYT, WaPo. The Israeli English language rags use this frequently - Haaretz, YNET, TOI, JPost. Whatever term we use - we should differentiate - Haredi are separate communities. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Stamford Hill

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

---

Please indicate which of the following should be in the article: (prior discussion Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 8#29 Rabbis - hoax?

A:

In September 2018, an open letter was signed by 29 rabbis from London Haredi communities stating that they were "shocked to learn about those that are claiming in the media that the Jews of Britain are outraged towards the Labour Party’s respected leader, Jeremy Corbyn", and went on to state that they had "no connection whatsoever" with what they described as "these irresponsible remarks". The letter was reproduced by a Twitter account calling itself "True Torah Jews" which is linked to the anti-Zionist Satmar Hasidic group. The authenticity of the signatories was initially dismissed as fake by the Jewish Community Council of North London, but they later backed down. However, the two activists who took responsibility for the letter, Shraga Stern and Naftoli Friedman, said it is genuine and claimed to have gained an extra five signatures since the letter was published, taking the total to 34.

B:

In September 2018, an open letter signed by 29 rabbis from London Haredi communities stated they were "shocked to learn about those that are claiming in the media that the Jews of Britain are outraged towards the Labour Party’s respected leader, Jeremy Corbyn", and went on to state that they had "no connection whatsoever" with what they described as "these irresponsible remarks".

C:

In September 2018, a letter organized by London Haredi activist Shraga Stern in defense of Corbyn decried "fake antisemitism smears". While pro-Corbyn campaigners utilized the letter, Stern himself was condemned for saying he had the support of a large block of Stamford Hill's Haredi community by leaders of the community who said he did not speak for the community. In the January 2019 Holocaust Memorial Day Trust event, after a photo was circulated of Corbyn with Stern and Stamford Hill Jewish Community Council founder Levi Schapiro, Schapiro said he was "unexpectedly dragged" into the photo and that "I don't support Corbyn and never did.".

D: Nothing at all.

References

Please indicate A, B, C, or D (or specify a ranked preference), stand state a reason.13:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• D nothing at all, followed by C and A. B is clearly a misrepresentation, possibly in hoax turf. The letter itself is clearly WP:UNDUE - it was mainly covered over claims it was a forgery (onlt in JPost, JC, and Jewish News AFAICT). Subsequent reporting has been limited to JC - a few days afterwards saying the activists stood behind this - JC September 17, and subsequent coverage in Jan 2019 over an incident in which Stern (one of the organizers) allegedly dragged a Haredi man into a photo-op with Corbyn (leading to a stmt - "I don't support Corbyn and never did") in which context the letter is mentioned in the context of prior controversy/activity of Stern ("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" (Strictly Orthodox = Hareid)). A letter whose main significance is possibly being a fake and being objected to by the community at large seems rather UNDUE - but if it is to be included, then the context should be clear (C / A). Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• A Widely reported both at the time and up to today., Strongly oppose c & D.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• D It's UNDUE. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• D Nothing at all. It is UNDUE. Also, some of the proposals are false and/or misleading. Proposal A, for example, should be amended to note that in ultra-orthodox communities, many, probably most adult men have rabbinic ordination, even though they earn their living as accountants, shopkeepers, whatever. It is not the same as saying that a similar number of Anglican pastors or Catholic priests signed such a letter and, therefore, is significantly misleading.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• A claiming it is a forgery or a hoax is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and cannot be supported by the sources. Covered in two sources which the editors calling for it to be removed normally argue are reliable sources. If their coverage is not considered reliable here then they can't be used as a source elsewhere in the article. G-13114 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pretty trivial, though. We can't include everyone who signs a letter, pro- or con- something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Except we do cover every letter signed by more then 2 people covered by RS critical of Corbyn.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• C | MK17b | (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of the options, none of which I'm totally happy with, B comes closest to what I would support, being briefest. As I think that brief coverage should be included, that rules out D. A and B are too detailed. Icewhiz, you should add some kind of indication that you were the originator of this RfC. I'm unhappy at the wording: "Please indicate which of the following should be in the article." It's really not up to one editor to give other editors four different options and ask editors which one to use. Presumably, option A is the most recent version of what was in the article? Where did the other options come from? Note that the "prior discussion" (Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 8#29 Rabbis - hoax?) is still open. You were asked to provide a suggested text for discussion, not to write a number of options and ask editors to choose between them. Personally, being unhappy with the wording of any of the options and viewing the nature of this RfC as malformed, I'm not going to regard any claims that the woding has been fixed by this RfC as valid.     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: it's curious that WP:UNDUE, which is to do with balancing different viewpoints, is being used as an argument, not for reducing the amount of text devoted to the letter, but for removing any mention of it at all.     ←   ZScarpia   15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• B as per ZScarpia, including criticism regards the rfc. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A i did not like because once the letter was proven not to be fake, why mention that some sources questioned it validity. C because the second sentence regards Stern not speaking for the community is unsourced. D the are few examples going the other way. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

C is sourced to the JC piece from Jan 2019 - every single bit appears in the source. See quotes from JC piece for 2nd sentence: "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. The false assertion above should be struckIcewhiz (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• D UNDUE. ShimonChai (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• D UNDUE. The longer versions are excessively lengthy, and still don't give enough context to fully make sense; the shorter version is seriously misleading. Best just to remove. The secondary coverage mostly related to the controversy about whether it was legit or not so hard to see it as really noteworthy, especially in an already bloated article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• D UNDUE. On top of the fact that it's totally undue and trivial, they're not even well written. Had to read it over several times just to understand what was being stated. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• B. Strongly oppose C as WP:SYNTH and for relying on articles that have been retracted or debunked; somewhat less strong opposition to A, which is more accurate but which gives unnecessary weight to what seems to have been a brief journalistic mistake that went nowhere. If we go with D, I feel we need to go back over the article and remove several similar statements that are currently included to ensure WP:NPOV, since there's a lot of stuff currently there that attracted less coverage than this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Retractions have not been presented for any news item here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• D nothing at all, out of restraint, seems UNDUE, and is a bit OFFTOPIC not directly or indirectly on anti Semitic acts but into Internet squabbling about whether claims about reactions are real. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• A - as content is noteworthy with significant coverage or B for due weight. RevertBob (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• 'D I can go to the grocery store and find 30 rabbis buying gefilte fish, as EM Gregory pointed out, having rabbinic ordination is not the same thing as being a priest or iman or minister or some other religious ordination. So it's clearly undue and not noteworthy to find 29 people with an opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• D or minimal inclusion. Just seems like a group of random rabbis who don’t necessarily speak for anyone else. It’s not an organized group or anything, just a random selection. If it gets a lot of coverage maybe minimal inclusion would be warranted. But right now it just seems like apologism. (note: notified by Legobot)‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• D (nothing): This, as a micro-subtopic, has WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOT#NEWS problems. All of the proposed passages about it also have WP:TONE issues, and are written in a scandal-sheet kind of way, focusing on he-said-she-said and posturing. The quoted material doesn't even make a lot of sense (it's full of weasely blather), and could have been paraphrased much more concisely, especially since at this point in the article it's already clear who Corbyn is.

  If something like this is in the article at all, it should be highly compressed, e.g.: "In September 2018, an open letter from 29 London Haredi rabbis defended Jeremy Corbyn against accusations of anti-semitism." The end. However, I don't think even this should be included; 30-ish random rabbis is not encyclopedically significant.

  PS: Version C doesn't actually make sense in English, twice over. You can't "organise a letter" or "utilise a letter". That's like saying "erect a nap" or "snort an elephant"; those verbs just don't apply to those nouns. I think the first meant something like "a letter-writing campaign organised by [x]", or "a letter written by [x] and co-signed by [y]", or something like that. I'm not sure what was meant in the "utilise" segment, but whatever it is, this isn't encyclopedic writing.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• D arguments are most convincing to me. Jzsj (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• B per ZScarpia. There is a consistent effort throughout the editing process here to erase any mention of Jewish voices disagreeing with the 'official line' put down by the major Jewish political bodies. It's patent ethnonationalist POV pushing, and I'm surprised those in favour of erasure cannot see it.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the Rabbis' letter RfC

C does in fact conflate two different and unrelated events.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

C is the latest coverage of this letter in the context of Mr. Stern - the letter's organizer. It would seem the lack of support is such that Stern resorts to dragging other Haredi men into photo-ops - who then loudly protest about this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And if we only covered the letter (interesting, ongoing coverage) fine. The photo opp is wholly unrelated to the letter, other then one of the participants also had a hand in the letter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The sole coverage in RSes this letter received is in the context of dubious activity. Lately a single item on forcefully dragging people into a photo-op, and back in September on the letter itself being a possible forgery (JN and JPost reporting once on the possible forgery and otherwise not covering the letter since). If we are to include this, then it is equally DUE to cover photo-op dragging which seems to be the sole context this dodgy letter receives any sembelence of continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

NO its not, at least one JP article stated that the original claim made (by the JCC [[15]]) had been withdrawn, and the 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.". Multiple RS have covered this, have multiple RS covered the "photo opp" (and including it, anyway, does not mean as part of this incident, it should be separate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"It would seem the lack of support is such that Stern resorts to dragging other Haredi men into photo-ops." Only if a large dose of negativc inferrence is applied. And it would be better if the sources being used to cover the Ultra-Orthodox community's position didn't have a commmon WP:PARTISAN bias.     ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A few more sources [[16]], [[17]] (no claims of false hood and a confirmation that some of the signatories said they had signed it), [[18]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I will add that this is long term content, thus the RFC is about the wording, not its inclusion as such.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of this not so long-term content (harks back to Sep 2019, has been contested to various degrees since introduction) is an option in the RfC per WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That would make it 5 months old, that is pretty long term.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, an alternative view of events by Jewish Voice for Labour (the blog is not reliable for anything but the views of JVL of course): [19][20][21]. And Forward and +972 have articles which takes a different view to the Jewish Chronicle and its like too.[22]     ←   ZScarpia   12:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Re "It's patent ethnonationalist POV pushing, and I'm surprised those in favour of erasure cannot see it" – I'm actually very alert for that sort of thing (I wrote WP:ETHNO, and "my group versus yours" PoV-warring and manipulation of WP content is the general main subject of WP:OTR, which I fortunately rarely need to add anything to). But I don't see it here. Any time some public figure is dubiously accused of some offensive "-ism", it's always an accusation by a subset of people who could be offended (namely, an over-reactive and easily offended subset who imagine themselves mind-readers who always know what someone's intent is). It's implicit in the nature of that entire kind of public controversy that not every single person who could have that perception does have it, much less that they must have it because of their cultural or genetic background. Remember that it's not WP's job to determine whether someone is antisemitic, or whether antisemitism is a real and pervasive problem in the Labour Party. We're just reporting as controversies what the RS are telling us are controversies. They couldn't be controversies if no one was controverting them, so we need not dwell on minor details of who is controverting whom. Anyway, I did lay out a shorter version that could be viable, but I don't think it's really necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a professional interest in the topic of ethnic identity, so of course I appreciate your work at WP:ETHNO.

Editors who pursue the dramatization of the issue look ethnonationalist if they (a) insist on minutely documenting everything regarding the fears and perceptions of an anti-Semitic threat to the existence of British Jews (b) while constantly challenging as WP:Undue voices within that same community who happen to not share the majoritarian POV.

Wikipedia articles should aspire to encyclopedic quality, and be written sub quadam aeternitatis specie, that wonderful Spinozan phrase for one of the characteristics of rational analysis, a corrective to the temptation to get entangled in (WP:Recentism). Blow by blow sourcing is hectic, frantic indeed, over what to winnow, and what to glean. When that runs into a two/three year long day by day editing regime, the result is going to be awkward, inevitably. Just as an observer, I would expect that via Merton's law of self-fulfilling prophecies, esp. were Labour to lose the next election, this hullabaloo, and those who promote it, would naturally feed the resentment of the defeated esp by playing into the anti-Semitic fantasy of a small elite dictating national outcomes.

As to this article, we are dealing with a controversy concerning 600,000 members of a party, and the over 12,000,000 people who voted for it (2014) and their ostensible attitudes to 0.5% of the English population. Mainstream newspaper coverage is predominantly against Corbyn, and to a lesser extent, the Labour party under his leadership. The Guardian has strong Blairite sympathy.

As to the 0.5%, 85% think the case closed: of English parties, Labour and Corbyn display either an anti-Semitic attitude or are careless about it. That this perception contradicts everything comparative research has yielded up about the topic of British political parties and anti-Semitism is immaterial. Since Labour and Corbyn's attitude attracts huge media attention, whatever the imbalance, one has to deal with that.

Of the 0.5% you have a split, 85% affirm the thesis, 15% deny it, hence of course WP:Due kicks in, not surely to elide the faceted realities of the 15%? The 15% are made up of (a) orthodox religious communities and their leaders, (b) Jewish Labour militants critical of Israel, (c) and public figures, assorted intellectuals, and legal experts on human rights like Sir Stephen Sedley. . What I see is far too much prose overall, no sense of encyclopedic synthesis, and repeated edit battles over include/exclude when any experienced editor/writer could sum up the fact that 29 rabbis, 12 Holocaust survivors, Labour Jewish groups and public intellectuals of Jewish background do not concur with the polled Jewish majority in a short 4/5 sentence paragraph. Since that is possible,the keep in as a significant minority/keep out as fringe tussle is a exasperatingly pointless refusal to master the art of précis, which would allow all angles to be covered in probably a fifth of the space used up just to cover some of them.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:SYNTH

(Undid revision 888834366 by Nishidani (talk) appears to be SYNTH, the government is following other governents (sic) in not voting under biased UNHRC agenda items and then the article says that it appears that it might be because the Conservatrives (sic) want to align themselves with the Jews following the Labour and antisemitism issue, but the way it was worded now is not acceptable

WP:SYNTH reads:

(a)Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (b) Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

You clearly have not either read or remembered the policy you cite to justify the excision. For in my paraphrase (a) only one source is used, (b) summarizing two consecutive paragraphs, , ,not different parts of a source.

The UK will oppose motions criticising rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza that are brought to the UN’s human rights council under a special procedure dedicated to Israel’s behaviour in the occupied territories, Jeremy Hunt has said.The move is likely to delight the Trump administration, which quit the human rights council in June last year, citing its approach to Israel. It also appears aimed at cementing the Conservative party’s relations with pro-Israel sections of the British Jewish community at a time when the Labour party is mired in criticism of its handling of antisemitism complaints.

I paraphrased these two consecutive paragraphs thus:-

In a move coinciding with criticism of Labour's handling of antisemitism complaints, the Conservative Party, in a decision seen as consolidating links with pro-Israeli groups in Britain’s Jewish community, announced it would oppose motions critical of Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories when they are raised at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

There is no synthesis, only a close paraphrase. I'd like an explanation therefore. There is no need to waffle on about the rest of the article or your opinion that this or that is 'biased'. This is a question of correct policy comprehension.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The UK has decided how to vote in the UNHRC, not the Conservative party. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pettifogging. (a)The UK government policy reflects a decision by the ruling Conservative Party. (b) if that is your objection it is not WP:SYNTH to identify the policy Britain will adopt as one determined by the actual Conservative Party government (c)

There is a device called tweaking if an editor is dissatisfied with an edit's source compliance. In this case it would consist in adjusting 'announced it would' to 'announced Britain would'. Nah, that would allow the obvious fact to stay on page, of course, hence the false edit summary justifying deletion. Sorry, but your reply says nothing about WP:SYNTH, which is the reason you have for expunging the text. So, explain where the synthesis is, please. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where Nishidani gets the justification to say "in a decision seen as consolidating links with pro-Israeli groups in Britain’s Jewish community" outside of WP:SYNTH of course. Alssa1 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit strong to include it in this article, seeing as the link to antisemitism in Labour is given only a passing mention in the source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I analysed the claim, cited the relevant policy, illustrated the incoherence of the assertion by comparing source and paraphrase. No reply faces the evidence that claimi ng synthesis is errant, a false claim. Either one can, or in lieu of waffling, one stays mum. For the record, SJ is a habitual reverter of my edits, and advised me once not to touch articles regarding Jews.Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It was an interesting read but it's really nothing to do with this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, rather off topic to antisemitism in Labour. Also misrepresents the source that sees UK Jews (and by extenssion woes in Labour) as "also appearing" to be a reason.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Its not synth, it does have an indirect link to antisemitism in the Labour party, however it is mostly about policy concerning the situation between Israel and Palestine. So I am not sure where I stand atm. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed', nothing, Icewhiz. The original removal was based on an egregiously false edit summary or pretext. To shift the goalposts by ignoring this fact, then to justify the deletion with other vague opinions, is a show of poor editing practice, more whack-a-mole that craft. This is relevant because the accusation of anti-Semitism is embedded in a political struggle over British policy regarding Israel and the systematic documentation of every picayune nuance in the former, while ignoring the political ramifications (here remarked on), is tantamount to playing politics with the page. I've added Antony Lerman, The Labour Party, 'institutional antisemitism’ and irresponsible politics,' Open Democracy 21 March 2019 to the page. It provides a solid analytic overview and comes from someone with expertise on both anti-Semitism and British politics. It should be used broadly throughout this article, replacing the newspaper sourcing where possible.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Liking Lerman is not a reason to include what is essentially a blog post (or do we qualify opendemocracy as an oped?). UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Antony Lerman is a prominent published expert on anti-Semitism. openDemocracy is not a blog.WP:Undue should not be used as camouflage for WP:IDONOTLIKEIT. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lerman is a retiree who mainly writes in the comment section of the Guardian and a bit in openDemocracy - he hasn't published in an academic setting in the past decade or so (per google scholar search). openDemocracy is a website, opinions posted there - are opinions - they do no undergo editorial controls. Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a new one. Where in wikipedia is it stated that retired scholars cannot be cited if they write an essay on a topic they have specialized competence in after they go on the pension?!!!!!!!!!! (He certainly does not consider himself retired from writing) All organizations have websites, and 99% of our material comes from think tank, newspaper, policy websites. openDemocracy has an editor, please note, charged with overseeing contributions. Take it to RSN, if you really believe you have a case. All we have here is unfocused assertions.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't been active academically in recent years. I don't see opendemocracy receiving favorable coverage as a source at RSN. Not much discussed, but: this isn't favorable. opendemocracy itself is an advocacy organization - "We help those fighting for their rights gain the agency to make their case and to inspire action.". At their moment their front page item claims "Brexit chaos could trigger a general election at any moment. Whenever it happens, there will be dozens of MPs who get elected illegally.". Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Take this to dispute resolution now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, take it to the RSN board. Your link does not lead to any such conclusion. All NGOs are 'advocacy' organizations (for human rights for example, or for ignoring them), but this does not translate into wiki practice of challenging them simply because they have a point of view. NPOV is balancing point of views, not eliding one of two. Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It was aimed at the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the Conservative Party item: This probably isn't synthesis (though I can see why it looks like it, because it is talking about an apparent coincidence) but it is really not noteworthy enough to be in this article, as the topic of the article appears in passing in half a sentence of the source. On Lerman: I have a lot of respect for Lerman, but this page is filled with opinion pieces chosen fairly arbitrarily and we really don't need any more. Lerman is already quoted at length in the article at various points, and his opinion piece is not the best source for factual claims e.g. about the Chakrabarti report which was widely covered in news sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC consensus, random op-eds

This edit stating "rv random removals" reinstated content that a recent RfC decided to remove. It also restored two rather random, and recently introduced (not in the WP:STABLE version) op-eds/letters - one in Jewish Telegraph and another in Al-Jazeera - we had previously agreed that op-ed commentary should be pared down - particularly when the op-eds aren't referred to in a secondary manner (by sources covering the op-ed). Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The rabbi letter should just go - it's been RfCed and the closer gave us a clear steer. Neve Gordon should go - a completely arbitrary op ed by a non-UK professor who has no academic record on either antisemitism or the Labour Party, no more noteworthy than any of the probably hundreds of op eds written about this issue. There's a stronger case for Geoffrey Alderman's inclusion, as he has done scholarly research about antisemitism and British party politics, but given our bloated article I don't really think it's noteworthy enough, and has had no secondary coverage. Can we just delete? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I see RevertBob has restored the rabbi letter (along with these minor opinions) in order to go back to a stable version. Isn't it violation of policy, though, to go against an RfC closure, especially a pretty recent closure? I don't want to simply revert, but maybe my fellow Bob might want to revert himself? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is editing against consensus - restoring content a RfC decided to remove. Furthermore the edit summary of "Restore stable version with notable opinons sourced by RS" is false as it also restored the two random op-eds which are not in the WP:STABLE version of the article - added on 31 Match (breaking WP:CITEVAR one must add) and on 19 April - in both cases the content was in the article for less than 6 weeks prior to being challenged. Considering we have talk-page consensus this editing was out of line - it can certainly be reverted forthwith. Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @JFG: your close of - Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill - "There is consensus not to mention this letter at all, per WP:UNDUE. — JFG talk 19:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - has seemingly been challenged twice with reversion. Are BobFromBrockley and myself misunderstanding your close? Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  The RfC was closed on 2 April and it's the first time I am notified of a challenge to my findings. If any editors disagree with my reading of consensus, the appropriate process is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Meanwhile, any changes to article text against RfC consensus can be reverted on sight. — JFG ^talk 11:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Have now done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists' Group and Jewish Voice for Peace

The previous RfC appears to show a mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. I suggest a modified version sourced from RS with objected text removed as per the advice from ANI. There were no arguments on the RfC that the Morning Star isn't a reliable source and there's an RfC which confirms that it is. RevertBob (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is disruptive, and should be speedy closed. The prior RfC (which did not close with a "mixed outcome"), on the same WP:FRINGE content, was closed on 8 Feb 2019. Relaunching a RfC on the same issue a month later is not how we do things here. Changing the cited source tk the UK's only communist pro-Corbyn newspaper does not change the situation here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Independent Jewish Voices are now semi-defunct post-2015 except for their original convenor, Antony Lerman [23][24]. The Jewish Socialist Group is almost certainly a front within the SWP... it certainly is/was affiliated with the SWP's other fronts such as the UAF, Stand Up To Racism [25][26][27][28][29] and the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) [30]. The JSG is only really a 'Jewish organisation' if we are now going to categorise the SWP as a Jewish organisation as well! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

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

---

• Oppose. WP:UNDUE weight to fringe groups. The joint Jewish newspaper editorial was covered internationally being major news. The response by these fringe groups was limited to Facebook. Furthermore, the cited sources from the fringe Morning Star do not support the content. One source is JVP's open letter which supports JVP (but is not actual reporting - this is akin to a letter to the editor). The second source mainly covers the joint editorial and mentions that "Mr Rosenberg, a longstanding Corbyn ally, posted on Facebook accusing the papers..." - it frames this as a Facebook stmt by Rosenberg - not JSG. As for IJV - they are missing in action. So - fails WP:V, and is clearly WP:UNDUE promotion of fringe views.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include – Content trimmed down to include one sentence sourced from the WP:RS (which is determined by accurate reporting and fact-checking not political bias) Morning Star source. As per WP:NPOV, this is relevant content and an alternative viewpoint form other Jews and both sides of the Jewish community should be represented. RevertBob (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Jewish News has a circulation of 24,518, the |Morning Star 10,000. Given the overall newspaper reading population, both are 'fringe', and in my view, both are acceptable, because they represents vocal constituencies or important traditional communities. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply You really need consider the target demographic of both newspapers. Jewish News is bought by 8.5% of the UK Jewish population. That's large by any measure. The Morning Star's target demographic is what? Labour voters (12.878,460 last GE)? Trades Unionists (about 6.2 million)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If we used that logic, we would void most of the page, since the statistics are that 0.1% of the Labour membership has been accused of making antisemitic remarks, while 85% of the Jewish constituency is convinced that 'Anti-Semitism is rife' within the party. The former emerges from a simple statistical measure of who of the 600,000 people have been reported to the party. The latter is a perception. Within the Labour Party, Stephen Sedley argues,

“an undeclared war is going on inside the party, with pro-Israeli groups such as the Jewish Labour Movement seeking to drive out pro-Palestinian groups like the Jewish Voice for Labour by stigmatising them, and Corbyn with them, as anti-Semitic,”

Within Wikipedia, mirroring this, this rift is repeated. Some editors showcase the newspaper war hostile to Corbyn and his party, others note the extraordinary incongruity between the obsessively repeated innuendoes, and the statistical reality. The former seek to elide Jewish Voice for Labour, the latter defend its use, since the idea that there is only one statistically significant, uh 'Jewish perspective' on how Labour goyim view Jews' is a POV-push to use policy to create an imbalance and cog the dice.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: please strike "cog the dice". While I'm uncertain of the penalties for dice cogging in Roman barracks, the similar card sharking leads to American Remains or the inevitable in any Western scene.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have certainly emended my horrendous spelling mistake for 'view'. All that needs to be added is that the penalties for using cogged dice ( perhaps nequior talus Martial Book IV.XIV 9) in Roman barracks are not known, since that is too specific. Roman courts did not consider plaintiffs’ claims for redress on gaming rorts, of which coggng the dice was one. I would guess, actionable. And Wikipedia in its wisdom follows the same principle.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, addressing the inclusion of Jewish Voice for Peace... They are a US based anti-zionist activist group and, while I agree entirely with their mission statement, the relevance of their opinion on a joint editorial by UK newspapers about a UK politician is extremely questionable. Of the other two groups, Independent Jewish Voices are more credible by a long way and I would not question their inclusion. Jewish Socialists' Group on the other hand is a fringe group and their inclusion is unwarranted. It isn't really up for debate that the three UK papers represent a majority view of UK Jews on this topic. If we are to include a counterpoint to it, a single short sentence covering IJV's letter would be as much as could be reasonably justified. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include What the RFC said "There is no consensus to include this information." So it is true there was no consensus. It had been long standing content that had just as much been the subject of regular talk page discussion as it is now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Slatersteven. I might add that the repeated use of the 'fringe' argument is bizarre.

British Jews constitute 4.44%0.5% of GB's population, i.e. by this logic they are 'fringe'

Of British Jews, the percentage who are Hasidim varies (1996/1997) from 3-4 to 10%, or if you look at the school-age population,36% are taught in ultra-orthodox schools.

So, British Jews are percentually fringe in terms of the whole population, as ultra-orthodox Jews are fringe (under 10%) within British Jewry, and the 15% of British Jews who do not think Corbyn or his party anti-Semitic are also 'fringe' compared to the near consensus of the 85%. Not for that should we start saying that the views of 85% of 4.4 0.5 percent on a major British political party deserves hectically minute coverage untarnished by reminders that notable fringes Jewish-political, or Jewish religious, dissent from that majority. If we are to observe WP:NPOV, w are obliged to cover all significant views within the affected ethnic community, governing the reportage only in terms of WP:Undue. The Corbyn bashers there are due more coverage, but those who rebuff that community's overall attitude deserve proportionate coverage without suppression of their disagreement as 'fringe'.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have no idea where you get the statistic that "British Jews constitute 4.44% of GB's population". On the latest census, we were actually rather less than 0.5%, and you are incorrect by an order of magnitude. I suspect that a decimal point slipped in your calculation. RolandR (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct, as usual. My apologies. Don't know what happened, but hope your hypothesis, which suggests digital incompetence rather than senile hyperbole, explains it. Either that or somehow the figure popped up from some memory that at the end of WW2, 4.4% of the British Parliament consisted of members of Jewish background. My apologies. Roland (the lower figure of course only strengthens one's admiration for the extraordinary achievements of such a minority, as per Hobsbawm,Interesting Times p.25.'if there is any justification for the claim that 0.25% of the global population in the year 2000 which constitute the tribe into which I was born are a 'chosen' or special people, . . it rests on its quite disproportionate and remarkable contribution to humanity.' The hysteria documented here distresses people like me -too much to be genuinely proud of to allow it to be trashed effortlessly by imitating the curse of Western modernity, ethnonationalist haranguing. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently, about 3.5% of MPs are Jewish. The highest figure seems to have been after the 1966 election, when about 6.5% of MPs were Jewish - most of them Labour, as it happens. I am not going to comment on the hysteria; living at the centre of this means that I have a much sharper perspective, much of it informed by experience rather than by documents, and thus not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that was interesting. I have no idea why you started spouting about "ultra-orthodoxy" (you know that's viewed as an insult by the people you're describing?). I also have no idea why you started spouting about the hasidim. It's fairly clear though that you think the two are one and the same. Maybe to you they are? The 85% does not include "ultra-orthodox" jews, whether they're hasidim or otherwise. They are generally detached from politics and will have no opinion on Jeremy Corbyn. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot construe what an interlocutor states, in context, don't presume to answer. Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. "Interlocutor" huh? lol Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some reasons for inclusion. WP:FRINGE is not relevant outwith matters using the scientific method. Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not In the topic subset of Jews in the Labour Party, the leftwing Jewish groups collectively are notable, based on the coverage they get in the media. They also speak on the issue for much of the LP membership, who have twice elected JC as leader, so I think they can be quoted where there is a RS.The political stance and circulation size of Morning Star are not barriers to it being treated as a reliable source. It covers a range of left wing political issues and views. Given that the national press are all anti-Corbyn, it is important that we allow the voice of the LP and its supporters to emerge. Regarding this particular instance: I think JVP should be excluded, as they are too distant from the issue. I think IJV should be excluded if there is not a RS (I did not see one). JSG is small, it is not stated what the role of David Rosenberg is within the organization or that he is speaking on behalf of the organization, or the context of his words. So he is only speaking for himself, which is not enough. So, I think he should be excluded too. Jontel (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include. As these groups represent the views of many Jewish Labour Party members their views are notable on the subject of the article. G-13114 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) I agree with the UNDUE and false balance arguments made above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning INCLUDE. Happy the guidance of ANI is being followed, and think there is some prominence and need to cover more POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Addition of another fringe source doesn't change much still WP:UNDUE and violation of WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Please read the page, and this section, before voting. This is not about a 'fringe source'. It is about whether to include content or not. A movement is not a source, be it fringe or otherwise. The newspapers reporting the movement's actions constitute the sources, which can be mainstream or fringe. So, since you didn't understand this, it woulde be good to read the section, grasp what it's about and then 'revote'. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include As per all the reasons above given by RevertBob, Nishidani, G-13114 and Slatersteven above, and esp. regarding maintaining non-partisan neutral balance in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include per others listed above. --NSH001 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include: Though the 'alternative' viewpoint may not be covered to any great extent in the newspapers, much of whose reporting is far from factual, in order to achieve neutrality, it should be treated appropriately in the article, which means giving it at least some coverage, however brief.     ←   ZScarpia   21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced on the FRINGE opposition (I think JSG and IJV both represent valid viewpoints in this debate, even though they are clearly a minority within a minority), but more importantly this fails verifiability. Neither link mentions IJV. JSG is not supported by the first link, which is about Rosenberg personally not the Group. JVP is shown more clearly, but the source is the open letter itself so primary, which is far from ideal (and suggests less noteworthy). Note JVP is a US group. So, if the text were to follow the sources it'd need to say something like "One prominent Jewish socialist, Dave Rosenberg, and the American left-wing organisation, Jewish Voice for Peace, condemned the editorial, with Mr Rosenberg describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria". which doesn't seem worth including. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Referencing

This article has Citations, Sources, a Bibliography, and Further reading. Can't we streamline this? The most common practice now is just Refs and Further reading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore some editors, counter to WP:CITEVAR, have been adding Harvard style citations - which are clunky and annoying to work with. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's probably got a bit out of hand when there are, for instance, in the "Criticism of revised definition", two citations (currently numbers 217 and 218) to the same New York Times article by Stephen Castle justifying the same statement, one giving full details, the other referring on to the Sources section.     ←   ZScarpia   12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ineptness

(*(1) this restores a phrasing I removed while making a large rewrite and expansion with far more detail. You kept that expansion but restored in another lead paragraph the defective and misleading phrase, overegging the pud. since the lead now repeats itself. That is incompetent,Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• (2) Lerman 2019 was removed, on the unheralded pretext that wiki can't cite a retired scholar. Worse, the pretext also added that he might be used, if attributed, but a quotation from an official report is not Lerman's opinion. Worser, Lerman has been stable on the page for an article he wrote in 2018, which you didn't challenge. So you are being totally incoherent. You cannot challenge an article by a scholar because he was in your view 'retired' in 2019, while leaving in an article from 2018 by the same scholar when, if you were correct, he was retired. This kind of random removalism hits the bottom of absurdity. Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Either take this to ANI or stop commenting on users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing reportable in Icewhiz's position. It is just in these two cases, poor editing practice. That the two edits were incoherent, and for that reason 'incompetent', can be noted, and are not personal attacks. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I take your point on (1) - you did indeed paraphrase this elsewhere, therefore - I self reverted. As for (2) - Lerman from 2018 is used for an attributed quote - Lerman is a RS for Lerman's own words (he may be UNDUE - but that's a separate matter). Lerman, on opendemocracy, is not a RS on other BLPs in an unattributed fashion. Constructively, I suggest you replace Lerman2019 in the lede with the BBC - 2018 or 2016 - if you want to keep this particular direct quote. Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the revert on that. You still haven't shown what I asked for. Someone who has a scholarly record on anti-Semitism, who headed the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, worked for the Runnymede Commission on Antisemitism etc., with 30 years of writing, within Jewish or other think tanks, about anti-Semitism, and reliably published on the topic consistently, is self-evidently RS. Look, those credentials are so strong, and his position as an authority on the topic secured by the think tanks employing him for decades, that objections are extreme. If you make the exceptional claim, with no wiki policy writ to back it, that he is on the pension and therefore ratshit, unless used with attribution, I suggest you argue that at the RSN board. openDemocracy is used elsewhere on this page, and no one has thought that odd. Why it should somehow transmogrify into non-RS because Lerman also wrote a piece for it, is inexplicable. WP:BLP, again , has nothing to do with this. The words quoted are from the Chakrabarti Report in any case do not require attribution to the author of the source where it is cited. I'll take it to RS, but really, if you make obviously strange claims without policy basis, you should be the one to address the appropriate noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

See here. Let's be patient, not reargue what we've said here, but wait for independent third party assessments.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I clarified my challenge there - I suggest you don't respond (and neither shall I) - and we'll see what outside input says. My issue with Lerman on opendemocracy is first and foremost that I don't see opendemocracy as a WP:RS for facts. Had Lerman been published in mainstream news media (not as an oped) or (better) in an academic journal - then I would not have contested that. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What's Arutz Sheva doing here then? Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I currently see it in the article being used for an attributed opinion from an expert in the field of antisemitism - not as a sole source for fact. WP:RSOPINION is a generally easy bar to meet (e.g. - I'm not challenged Lerman 2018 on RS grounds - as the source is probably reliable for Lerman's own opinions (which means we can trust them not to type something up and post it under the byline of an author who didn't write it)).Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, frankly, you are missing quite a bit. Manfred Gerstenfeld is used twice, once unattributed (by not mentioning him as the author)

Note 115 Manfred Gerstenfeld Muslims play a prominent role among Labour party anti-Semitic inciters, Arutz Sheva, 8 May 2016

Note 271 (Manfred Gerstenfeld) "Reactions to anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party". Arutz Sheva. 29 May 2016.

Gerstenfeld is controversial in Norway, after claiming that "Norway is a nation of anti-semites" and that "Norwegians are a barbaric and unintelligent people", and accusing King Harald, Crown Prince Haakon, former Foreign Minister and now Labour leader Jonas Gahr Støre and former Prime Minister and now NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg of being "anti-semites". Gerstenfeld has published books about his views on Norway and written several newspaper articles that have been controversial.[4][5] Norway's largest newspaper and main newspaper of record, the conservative daily Aftenposten, has described Gerstenfeld in an editorial as a far-right extremist and fanatic.[6] Imre Hercz, a Norwegian doctor and well-known member of Norway's Jewish community, has condemned Gerstenfeld's "propaganda war against Norway".[4] According to expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hilde Henriksen Waage, Gerstenfeld is a central figure in a smear campaign against Norway on the Israeli far-right.[7] Odd-Bjørn Fure, Norway's main anti-semitism expert and founding director of the Center for Studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities, has said that Gerstenfeld "is not worth arguing against. I prefer to deal with serious people. We do not take this person seriously

I.e. You are justifying the retention of two articles by a man who has zero academic qualifications in the field he writes about and who is highly controversial, known for racist and bigoted remarks, writing for a fringe Israeli settler newspaper to descant on the British Labour Party (when his articles quote mainly British newspapers we already have access to. That's fine.

But you reject an accomplished British scholar specializing in anti-Semitism,-about whom not a jot or tittle of suspicions about intellectual integrity exists, as opposed to Gerstenfeld- writing in openDemocracy. If you can't see the extreme subjectivity of what is dictating your choice between what is acceptable per RS and what is not, no amount of argumentation will persuade you that the above contrast is comically unbalanced, when not sheer chutzpah.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerstenfeld should be used attributed - if he's not - he should be. However, he is a noted scholar on antisemitism and the Holocaust. As for being "controversial in Norway" - well - considering he has written on the widespread antisemitism in Norway that's not surprising - all you've got there is various Norwegians saying Norway is not antisemitic. Considering the Norwegian AG just recently ruled that saying "Fucking Jews" is not antisemitic (but rather a "criticism of Israel" - even though Israel was not even mentioned)[31][32] - Norwegian opinion really carries very little weight on the matter. Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone without credentials (he has no scholarly credentials in this area) and who has made inflammatory racist statements against an entire people as anti-Semitic ("Norway is a nation of anti-semites" and that "Norwegians are a barbaric and unintelligent people", ) is automatically ruled out from being a reliable source, especialòly on a sensitive topic dealing with another nation and the same topic. Period. You shouldn't be pushing this. It is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You'd better provide a source for that quotation - copying from a wiki article does not excuse a BLP violation. Gerstenfeld has definitely criticized Norway for widespread antisemitism there - your personal opinion (or Norwegian popular media) on the issue matters little. Here's an opinion with some weight: "Author Manfred Gerstenfeld, who is recognized by many as one of the leading scholarly authorities today on anti-Semitism and on post-Holocaust studies[33]. Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the ipsissima verba from his own website here,'This has made Norway, in my view, the most anti-Semitic country in the West.' Having declared that, on another page on his website, while claiming the press misreports him, he asserts that 'This text also quoted me falsely as having said that Norway was “the most anti-Semitic nation in Europe.” .' Since he contradicts himself about what he said, his defense on anything he says is improbable.

Anyone who says 'I deny I said that' and then 'follows it up with 'Yes, I said precisely that' withourt using a confessional mode or irony is obviously so totally unfocused that he can't be treated seriously, in the world, let alone on an encyclopedia.]

Whoever wrote, whether it be Anshel Pfeffer, a Haaretz journo, or someone else, that Gerstenfeld is 'one of the leading scholars today on anti-Semitism and on post-Holocaust studies' is familiar with neither of those scholarly disciplines, since they don't cite him. The book you refer this opinion to is edited by three people teaching at the West Bank's controversial settler institution, Ariel University, and is published by IGI Global, which is a vanity or predatory publisher or rogue book publisher.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely it is better to source factial info on Chakrabarti from news sources rather than op eds, even if the op eds are written by serious people like Seymour and Lerman? Re Gerstenfeld: I support his removal, along with all of the other opinion pieces not widely quoted in secondary sources. [I believe this unsigned comment from a month ago was by me. Apologies for not signing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC) ]

[34] "I cannot help but feel this is a POV fork from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom an article that most of the material for this one was cherry picked from (and it still mostly duplicates). It is hard to see how and why we need an article on this when far more antisemitic parties can get away with just an article about them." I wonder if the original poster can possibly justify his comment from back in 2017, now? -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting comparing the contents of the information pages for the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party articles. Page length, measured in number of bytes, respectively, for each article: 39,740; 192,826. Page views in the last 30 days: 1,731; 13,257. Total number of edits: 591 since article creation in May 2013; 2,695 since article creation in November 2017. It's also interesting to compare the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party articles. The former deals with antisemitic events as they occurred for each period of party leadership stretching back to 1834; the latter concentrates on the period of the Corbyn leadership (and, to boot, contains a "Jeremy Corbyn" information box at the bottom).     ←   ZScarpia   12:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Because at the time it did, As to justification of it now. Well there are still political parties in the UK that are more overly (and in the case of the Tories covertly, just) antisemitic them the Labour party (the only one that has in fact a specific rule banning antisemitism). It is still a case that this article is almost wholly about the Corbyn era (and Corbyn). In fact some of the sections (such as the one about the definition of antisemitism) are larger or almost as large as the articles on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't try to gaslight people. The Labour party is the party of antisemitism in the UK. Not a week goes by that they don't have to either apologize or expel yet another member for being an antisemite. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That means nothing (assuming it is true) all that means is they have acknowledged that they have some issues with antisemitism, like all British political parties do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming it's true? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, every week? this week? last week? Last month how many, what about last year?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Since April last year (as of February this year) 12 members had been suspended (one a month).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

a lot more than 12 have been suspended. Don't just count MP. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It says members, not MP's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And a lot more than 12 members have been suspended, and the fact that more haven't is because Labour has been hiding their institutional antisemitism which is why they have been taken to task. And here are current candidates for Labour who are antisemitic: [35], to claim that Labour has less of an antisemite problem than any of the other parties in the UK is ludicrous and gaslighting to the extreme and just so wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For example, this person [36] just won a seat on a local council. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Twitter, really? Also it does not say as far as I can see more then 12 members have been suspended, it is just a list of allegations. Also we are talking about people being suspended, not wining seats (and last time I checked February was not only a week before April). Provide evidence it has been one a week for any meaningful length of time, not accusations apologizes and suspensions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Twitter, that's how people communicate. It's quite clear you are unwilling to see the evidence with your own eyes. Here's another one, [37] One of the worst things in the world is to deny antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this say there has been one suspension or apology every week, or just a lot of accusations? Accusations are not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Contradicting what you wrote, at least one survey has shown that the problem of antisemitism among supporters (presumably voters, as distinct to members) of the Labour Party isn't worse than in British society as a whole and is worse in some other political parties.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, please don't gaslight. 1. a survey from 2017 is nothing. 2. 85% of British Jews surveyed say Labour is antisemitic and a good chunk say they are thinking of emigrating should Corbyn become PM. To say that others are antisemitic is just wrong. Labour has an antisemitic problem and saying "well look at others" is just trying to tell Jews to ignore the issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My previous comment was an attempt to do one thing, and one thing only, which was to address your claim that "the Labour party is the party of antisemitism in the UK", a claim which you appeared to make without offering any substantiation. I pointed to the results of poll which attempted to measure the extent of antisemitic attitudes in the UK and to correlate them with such factors as political orientation. That poll indicated that, in 2017 when it was carried out at least, contrary to your claim, the attitudes surveyed were not most prevalent in the Labour Party. Note that I did not argue that there wasn't a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party and nor was I arguing that antisemitism among Labour Party members doesn't matter because it is worse in some other parties. In your response you argued that a poll carried out in 2017 is no longer relevant. If you have reason to think that levels and distributions of antisemitism in the UK may have changed substantially in the last two years, please supply your evidence. You also alluded to two polls carried out for The Jewish Chronicle ([47][48][49]][50]) by Survation. Survation asked 710 Jews their opinions about the UK political parties and their leaders. If you think that the result of those polls show that Labour party members, particularly or alone, are antisemitic, ask yourself whether you would accept as a matter of fact that the results of a similar poll of Palestinians would show that Netanyahu is a Fascist and Likudniks are howling racists. Note that usage of the word 'gaslighting' is now well past the point of being tedious.     ←   ZScarpia   17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you not think there is an antisemitism problem in the Labour party? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask me, but I think there is an antisemitism problem in all the major UK parties, though perhaps less in the LibDems than in the others (and it's too early to say about ChangeUK).

I also think the major reason for the public outcry about Labour party antisemitism is a combination of anti-Corbinite red-baiting and fear of a policy turn against uncritical support for Israel - neither issue having any necessary connection to antisemitism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You're implying that antisemitism in Labour is not really antisemitism but really just made up anti-Corbyn? So when someone said the "Jews declared war on the Nazis" that was not antisemitic? Sometimes antisemitism has nothing to do with Israel, and antisemites are just antisemites and they find a natural home in a party that welcomes them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, those statements are antisemitic, just as the statements by Tories, UKIP and Brexit party supporters are antisemitic. It is the "Corbin's Labour Party as the party of antisemitism" trope that is often IME fuelled by additional motivations, as I noted above. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, far from Labour "welcoming" antisemites, there is a systematic process of review and expulsion awaiting them. I don't see UKIP or the Brexit party doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the systematic process of review and expulsion is non existent in the Labour Party, that's why a complaint was filed. Years of complaints and nothing was done, Corbyn himself sometimes held back reviews. So please don't say there is a complaint and review process in the Labour party. [51] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And what has happened about the complaint?Slatersteven (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

it was just filed, so nothing yet. But you still haven't answered my question, does Labour have an issue with antisemitism? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That is called shifting to goal posts, I was asked a question and answered. I am not going to answer another one because you failed to demonstrate that your response to my first answer was wrong. The issue was not is it not antisemitic, but that it is no more antisemitic, you have not demonstrated that is false, and I am not going to defend a statement (or deny one) that I never made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, you don't think it is not more antisemitic than any other party in the UK? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What my original response was "Well there are still political parties in the UK that are more overly (and in the case of the Tories covertly, just) antisemitic them the Labour party", so no I did not in fact say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think then it approaches CIR and SKY is BLUE territory. I don't think it's beneficial for me to further converse with someone like you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Using words such as 'ineptness' and 'incompetence' in discussion crosses the line from commenting on content to commenting on the contributor. The originator of this section will benefit in future reviews of past conduct, and will have their case better heard, by now striking through these lines. I invite them to do so now. Meanwhile, assessing the relative anti-Semitism of Labour and the Conservatives can be left to the reliable sources; trying to assert it ourselves is only going to lead to a flame war. In general, let's cut the personal. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)