Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Description of Shah and Livingstone's comments in the lede

Jontel modified the consensus version of the description of Shah and Livingstone's comments in the lede: "After comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership". After a few attempts to find a better description, it now reads as "After sharing an anti-Israel graphic and raising Adolf Hitler's views on Zionism by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone respectively in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership". However, a graphic saying that Israel should be "relocated to the United States", i.e. the state of Israel should no longer exist and its people should be deported is hardly just an "anti-Israel graphic. Similarly, Livingstone wasn't criticised for raising Hitler's views, but for the way in which he did it, which was widely described as antisemitic. Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Space is limited in the lede so a sufficiently full description of the incidents may not be appropriate. However, there is space to include the subject of the comments. I can see that you want to get antisemitism into it. How about "After Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 made comments on Israel which were described as antisemitic and resulted in their suspension from membership," Jontel (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
'I can see that you want to get antisemitism into it.' says Jontel in a clearly accusatory mode. If that comment is acceptable, then it is equally acceptable to say that one can see that Jontel 'wants to keep anti-semitism out of it.' Bellowhead678's case seems clear to me. Jontel seems to be just pushing the official UK Labour party whitewash. Just saying, as they say.--Smerus (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lets stop commenting on users shall we, its gets us nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I was inferring Bellowhead678's wishes regarding the sentence based on that user raising it in talk and what the user said in order to suggest a version that met those wishes. I was not intending any criticism. Jontel (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I think if we say they were suspended for their comments, the antisemitic nature is implied. I think the previous version "After comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership" is fine, and the full details are in the main body. I disagree with saying comments on Israel because it isn't relevant to whether the comments are antisemitic or not. Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
My reasons for thinking mentioning Israel in this sentence are relevant is 1) given WP:BLP, we should be precise about what we accuse people of, even if they are public figures, and antisemitism is implied here, even if not stated; 2) there is an ongoing disagreement as to whether and what criticism of Israel is antisemitic: see Working Definition of Antisemitism and the argument within the Labour Party on the definition's examples; 3) neither were formally judged to be antisemitic, which was not against party rules at the time; 4) most people would agree that there is a big difference between being anti-Jewish, which is rare, and being critical of Israel, which is more common; 5) it adds to the understanding of the issue to convey that their remarks were about Israel. Jontel (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, but neither of the statements which caused the issue were criticism of Israel. When Tories make Islamophobic comments about Muslims, we (rightly) don't describe them as criticism of Islam or comments about Islam just because Islam is relevant. Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Back to the content, Smerus and Slatersteven, are you happy to go back to the previous version? Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally I think we leave out detail from the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the current way the Lead is expressed, "after comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership", is a bit clumsy, particularly as part of the controversy surrounding Naz Shah didn't centre on a comment as such, but the sharing on Facebook of a cartoon satirising American attitudes to Israel[1][2]. May I suggest an alternative formulation: "After the party membership of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstoneh was suspended in 2016 following accusations of antisemitism ... ."     ←   ZScarpia   15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be relevant to say that, at the time, antisemitism was not a disciplinary offence so the suspensions were part of the process of investigating complaints that they had brought the party into disrepute. Moreover, suspension was part of the disciplinary process, not the punishment. So, I think what is proposed is misleading in two regards and I oppose it. I would be happy with the factual "After Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone faced disciplinary action in 2016 following comments on Israel ... .", Jontel (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy with ZScarpia's change, although "After Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone were suspended from the party in 2016 following accusations of antisemitism ... ." is slightly briefer. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That does read better.     ←   ZScarpia   23:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief"

Has anyone read "Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief"[3], by Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller, which was published this year? I suppose that the person who left the 1-star, only review, on Amazon is this Jonathan Hoffman: [4][5].     ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please include Hinduphobia

Letists and jihadist nexus involved in antisemitism is also involved in hinduphobia. Both jews and hindus usually collaborate and fight these forces together. It makes sense to expand this article to include these points in the article (a) infilteration by islamist supremacists of leftist party resulting in the blatant leftist-jihadist ideaology of the Labour party, (b) Anti-India and Anti-Israel stand, (c) Antisemitism and Hinduphobia. [https://www.opindia.com/2019/09/uks-labour-party-passes-resolution-on-kashmir-mirroring-pakistans-stand-india-calls-it-pandering-vote-bank-interests/ This] could be a starting point. Perhaps add a section "Related discrtimination: anti-India and hinduphobia". Thanks. 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.212.168 (talk)

racism in the Labour party?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
If you find significant levels of Hinduphoblia reported in reliable sources, perhaps start by adding it to the Labour party article. Jontel (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Pick a citation format

It doesn't matter which one, but it should only be one per article. Currently, this article is a hot mess and all over the place using all different types of templates, formatting, CS/1 vs Harv, etc. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style, this article should have just one clear reference format. What is it to be? Thanks. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am most familiar with ref tags as per Wikipedia:Inline_citation which is used in most of the articles I edit. I think it was the original approach used in this article. I would prefer that unless there is a strong case for change. The editor using this approach: ({{sfn|Delaney|2015}}) was User:Nishidani who has retired from Wikipedia. Jontel (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-retired. I've used that template for several hundred articles. I agree that, with every article on Wikipedia, some editors esp those committed to a specific text, should assume it part of their duty to go through and rewrite sources with one template. My work is easy because the template I use can be generated automatically by a very clever bot run by the very capable NSH001. It can run through a page in seconds and reformat it from top to bottom.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Err, not quite, it's a script, not a bot. Moreover, for the time being. it's a private script, although I hope eventually to make it available publicly. But not in the near future (think 3-6 years!). I think of its development as being like a Wikipedia article - starts off as a piece of crap, then slowly gets better as experience is gained. I've been (slowly) working on it for more than 3 years now, so another 3 years doesn't seem too unreasonable. Also, I won't run it on heavily edited articles such as this one (at least, not for a while yet). Noam Chomsky is about the most heavily edited article on which I've dared to run it so far. There is a long pinned thread on my talk page which explains more about it. --NSH001 (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I tend to use both sfn and ref formats even in the same article, the former linked usually to a bibliography and usually when I am going to refer to it more than once. Maybe its a thing for semi-retired folk :)Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is an aesthetic dimension to the presentation of text which, for potential readers, plays an important function. We should keep this in mind. A mediocre exam paper written in exquisite calligraphy can get a higher grade than an informed and thoughtful essay scrawled in a nigh illegible hand. Why? Because the grader's eyes feel relief at not having to strain through the impenetrable scribble. The same is true here: if you want your work read, take time out to render it visually attractive.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nishidani and Jontel: What should I conclude here? CS1 or {{sfn}}? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking back, as per WP:WHENINROME, 'Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.' In our current situation, we should seek consensus for a single citation style as per WP:CON, so perhaps you can call for a vote. Jontel (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have a predilection for the sfn style - it clears up an immense amount of citational clutter and excess. I haven't tried to fix it using that template because, as remarked, there is no one template agreed on. A certain consensus is required, If there is no 'established citational style', as remarked, then we propose alternatives and then vote, as Jontel remarks. The advantage of sfn is that we have the script that would transform the page effortlessly (despite the huge amount of sweat behind its development, so that no semi-retired or retarded idjets like myself need get their bowels in a knot.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Labour bashing?

I'm not denying the existence of anti-semitism in the Labor party, as there is everywhere. But this is the kind of article which is typically deleted for POV reasons. Are we conforming to policy here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamisilasadis (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Are you thinking of Wikipedia:Attack page 'An attack page is a page...that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject? Or, perhaps Wikipedia:Content forking 'A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.' Or something else? Jontel (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, see discussion of two years ago. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antisemitism_in_the_Labour_Party Jontel (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It is, and has long been, a venue for the continuing of politics, on Wikipedia, by other means, i.e. an attack page. The problem is (a) if Wikipedia represents faithfully the weight of sources and (b) the weight of the English press reporting this is wedded to the idea that, unlike other English parties, the Labour Party has a big anti-Semitic problem, the 'gotcha' attack editors can justify the unneutral spin we have as a fair reflection of the media bias. The problem in turn with that is that meta-media surveys of reportage all have very strong evidence, statistical and otherwise, that the media bias is pronounced, that technically Labour voters and the Labour party evince less anti-Semitism than is the general norm in English society or competing political parties there. The only way to fix this bias is the have an overview focusing on the academic media studies results, followed by the usual litany of bulleted themes treating the suspicions and accusations bruited about over the years. (But of course the attack school will say that that is bias as well, since academic studies (but not Jewish analytical surveys, which come to the same conclusion, asre all produced by lefties and 'liberals' in the weird American spin on that last word). Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we please not revisit this. There are enough people who want this article to ensure no attempt to delete it (by any means) will work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no question of deletion, just in case my words misled. There is an ongoing issue as to whether the POV slant it has should be fixed per WP:Weight to ensure that passing readers will think it balanced enough not to feel that it should be deleted.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That is also pretty much a dead horse, especially given the weight of RS on this subject.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nishidani that an encyclopedia should give more weight to actual empirical evidence from surveys and statistics than heresay and innuendo pushed by organisations hostile to the Labour Party (or it's current leadership). G-13114 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The significance of the attacks on Labour does appear to be vastly greater than that of any actual antisemitism. Labour has no anti-Jewish policies or practices. The 'antisemitism' is generally semi-private conversations about Israel. Many condemned as antisemites are simply protesting about the nature of the attacks. Against this, we have systematic secret recordings of meetings over a number of years, the targetting of individuals, and multi-year forensic analysis of the social media of individuals in order to drive them out of political life, public life or employment. We have the involvement of large numbers of lawyers, celebrities and politicians. We have the creation of a number of organisations dedicated to the attack. We have almost daily widespread, high profile and often highly partial media coverage since late 2015. The government is moving to enforce adoption of the IHRA WDA on local government and further education, potentially leading to widespread disciplinary action against employees. We could recognise the disparity in scale and significance between the individual transgressive behaviour and the attacks by renaming the page e.g. 'Allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party'. Something similar has been discussed before:
However, it would enable the page to cover the phenomenon in a more balanced way. It would also recognise that the charges are generally disputed. Jontel (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:DUE still applies

Someone had the brilliant (sarcasm) idea of introducing Jonathan Cook in defence of Corbyn, even adding "Israel-based" as if to imply that he is sympathetic to anti-racism. Cook is a columnist for Unz Review, an anti-semitic magazine with regular holocaust-denial. If anything, the support of a person like Cook supporting might possibly (but most likely not) be added as another case of anti-semitism. In absolutely no case can claim by Cook, only sourced by Cook's own writing be seen as WP:DUE. Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cook is a highly experienced award winning freelance journalist who has been published by a number of reputable publications. He has written several books on Israel's ambitions and activities, so has relevant subject expertise. His quotes come from Middle East Eye, not Unz Review. The section in the article in which he is quoted is explicitly about opinions, rather than establishing facts. This issue has come up before on this page: there are a great many opinions from both supporters and critics of Israel. Removing one and not others would be partisan. Jontel (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have never heard of Unz. I have familiarized myself with Jonathan Cook's reportage over more than a decade, mostly in Counterpunch, The National etc. Had I ever discerned even a smidgeon of anti-Semitism in his articles or books, I am sure it would have stuck in my memory. All I know him for is as a very reliable analysis of events in the I/P area.
I did examine Unz review. It collates with permission articles across the web, and yes, I can see some people there who have known anti-Semitic stances, Pat Buchanan, Israel Shamir etc.., but it also reproduces essay by Michael Hudson and Patrick Cockburn, who certainly are not known to sympathize or associate with anti-Semites. I noted in passing also Paul Craig Roberts, and checking I saw him getting Unz to reproduce a defence of himself against the accusations made about him concerning his ostensible views on the Holocaust, because it wouldn't languish on his own home page. Evidently, he knows almost zero of the Holocaust or WW2 and, in quoting Irving, laid himself wide open to the charge. What his views on this (rather than economics) are I don't know, but his recourse to Unz wasn't motivated by a desire to join the anti-Semitic herd. (Out of duty, I read the essay. There is phrasing there that smacks of anti-Semitism ('Zionist money'. where Zionist is a code-word for 'Jewish', but utterly stupid in historical perspective as an explanation of the dynamics of the leadup to WW2. There are many people one would unreservedly call anti-Semites who would be horrified at the idea, perhaps because their unawareness of historical details and complexities leads them into a semantic minefield where their ignorance blows their arguments up. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether we think he is dodgy or not, I don't understand why his opinion is relevant. He has no expertise on Labour or antisemitism; he is a commentator on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why does he deserve two sentences and two bibliography entries? Has his opinion been cited by other sources in a way that suggests it is noteworthy? This article is bursting with arbitrary opinions that add nothing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As BobFromBrockley, the comments above fail to address the WP:DUE part. And why is it relevant to present him as "Israel-based"? We don't give geographic location for others, so why here? It looks very much like a weasel-attempt to apply that Corbyn is defended "from Israel", which of course is nonsense as Cook is no friend of Israel. Don't get me wrong, Cook has the right to be as anti-Israeli as he wants, that is not an issue - the issue is (a) how we present him, and (b) why his comments are relevant here in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
'Israel-based' should be struck out. I would also suggest that we do not refer to critics of an occupation as 'anti-Israeli', any more than my, say, opposition to the Vietnam War would have justified calling me at the time, 'anti-American'. Cook is an award-winning English journalist who specializes in anything regarding the I/P conflict, including, naturally, the blowback of that conflict on the politics of his homeland. In my ideal wikiworld, comments would be, unless notorious, exiled from wiki articles, which should focus on the factual record. Very very few subscribe to, or practice that.
This article has little to do with facts (a small but cogent example of what statistical evidence suggests exists here), and a huge amount to do with perceptions, indeed 'opinions'.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a fair point about comments, Nishidani, and as you say, it's not consistently practiced. I am a bit concerned about Cook, though. It's not just a comment, it's a comment from a random journalist in another continent. Would we add the musings of a freelance journalist in Malaysia to the article on Trump's impeachment? Probably not. So while I take the points about comments overall, this is not 'just' a comment, it is an irrelevant comment.
On a side note, I have to point out that saying The media and Israel lobby may have been largely successful in recruiting British Jews and many others to their self-serving campaign to stop Corbyn becoming prime minister. already comes close to classic anti-semitic smears about some international Jewish conspiracy. I personally remain unconvinced about Cook not displaying some anti-semitic views. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A British journalist intimate with Israel writing about Corbyn and Israeli pressure groups is not comparable. As to the second point, I don't see that as anti-Semitic, not only for the simple reason that I read very closely The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which has an excellent preface showing the obvious, that lobbying is intrinsic to politics, that Israel's lobbies are no different from the norm, and that they are particularly successful in making life intolerable for any public figure in the United States who might come out with a statement about the I/P conflict that does not side with the Israeli government's position. The documentary record is extremely detailed, the credentials of the authors,Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer impeccable. The general response -no reply to their documentation - was a generic suggestion that they themselves were anti-Semitic. The 'rhetoric' here was to suggest Israel does not, unlike every other national or corporate body, drive its interests by using lobbying. And this extraordinary assumption draws its persuasive power from the numbly reflex meme that any such accusations about a lobby in such a context is code for, or reparcels, the Protocols of Zion thesis about Jewish power behind the scenes. Like those two scholars, I'm not intimidated by clichés of insinuation, even in this minefield. Discursive intimidation, canonizing rightspeech - the 'balanced' putatively neutral terminology certified by just half of the interested constituency-, making stay-clear zones of topics, is Orwellian. I think it pretty obvious that the huge media uproar on A-S in the UKLP is repeating what happened, though incrementally, since 1967 in the US. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is largely about the current Labour antisemitism controversy. One viewpoint on the controversy is that it has little to do with actual antisemitism and is really about opposition to politics based on their leftwards orientatation and support for the Palestinians. Cook is a prominent proponent of that viewpoint. It seems to me that opponents of that viewpoint have steadily, on various pretexts, whittled away its expression in the article, the material from Cook being the latest item on the agenda. As far as Cook's qualifications to write about the Labour Party and antisemitism is concerned, he is a British journalist and author of 'serious' books on the situation in the Middle East and its interaction with people and places elsewhere and, from what I've read, Jewish. I should think that that combination of attributes qualifies him more than many of the sources otherwise cited in the article. The article on Cook claims that he writes a regular column for the UNZ Review, presenting as proof the results of a search for articles by Cook at that site. Based on the evidence provided, the statement is unsubstantiated. All the articles I looked at had actually been reposted from The National.     ←   ZScarpia   18:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, would you kindly explain why you insert weasel-claims such as "Israeli-based" in the article? As Nishidani also pointed out above, it should be struck. Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree 'Israeli-based' is unnecessary, but my impression of this article and of Cook here is exactly that outlined by Scarpia.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the descriptor "Israel-based".     ←   ZScarpia   10:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Update to Surveys and Studies

This article mentions a number of studies conducted by YouGov/Campaign Against Antisemitism which have been conducted annually since 2015.

However, since 2018 these polls have formed part of a wider study conducted together with King's College London which shows that Antisemitism on the far-left has overtaken Antisemitism on the far-right, with "two thirds of Jeremy Corbyn's strongest supporters holding at least one antisemitic view"[1].

The full report can be found here.

Interestingtimes456 (talk | contribs), 00:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That research looks very contentious to me, it appears to be based on conflating opposition to Israel and anti-zionism with antisemitism if you look at the detail of the research [2]. I'm sure there will be plenty of rebuttals against it. G-13114 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://antisemitism.uk/caa-and-kcl-study-finds-far-left-jew-hatred-has-now-overtaken-far-right-in-britain-and-two-thirds-of-corbyns-vanguard-of-strongest-supporters-hold-antisemitic-views/
  2. ^ https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Antisemitism-Barometer-2019.pdf
The current polls cited in the article are previous versions of this research and the citations in the article link to previous versions of this report[1]. If you disagree with the Campaign Against Antisemitism's methodology, then all previous research conducted by them must be removed. Otherwise, the most recent findings must be included as they are very relevant to the article and present a very different picture to the now outdated research cited in the "Surveys and studies" section of this article.
  1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#cite_note-CAAsurvey17-389
I'm don't think this is directly comparable to the previous research, as it is using a completely different and very contentious definition of what constitutes antisemitism in order to produce its findings. This is something which would have to be clearly noted. G-13114 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The research very clearly states that they have used the same 7 questions in conducting their fieldwork with YouGov since 2015. See page 7 of the 2019 report and page 29 of the 2017 report.
No they've used the same questions for what they call 'Judeophobic Antisemitism in Britain' and have introduced an entirely new category since their last research called 'Anti-Zionist Antisemitism in Britain' which uses a completely new set of six questions. See page 16. Only the first category is directly comparable with their previous research. Hence my statement that the large changes in methodology would have to be clearly noted. G-13114 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
That is perfectly reasonable, the 2019 findings based on the same methodology used in 2017 can be directly compared, but the new category can be mentioned separately as well.
Please can comments be signed, using the four tildes. Thanks. Jontel (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the study is designed to support the messages of the commissioning organisation, which is a campaigning one, particularly but not only by presenting criticism of Israel as prejudice against Jews. The organisation has been criticised before for its work and there is a case for removing its studies from the article. Jontel (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I do concur with many others on this talk page who call for greater use of empirical studies and statistical evidence. No previous editor seems to have dismissed research by the CAA on the basis being argued, and just because it now reaches a conclusion that many won't like that does not mean it can be ignored. Furthermore, I personally trust KCL who are a world-leading research university. Interestingtimes456 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It qualifies as RS, but it is an execrably stupid piece of 'academic' work. If you compare the sophistication of L. Daniel Staetsky's Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel JPR Report September 2017, (see pages 3-4 esp.) to the incipit of hysteria informing the corresponding overview in this slapdash hackwork, the difference in methodology is egregious: one is a standard application of recognizable principles of sociological analysis, the other adopts terms of definition that are utterly skewed towards producing the result desired by the body commissioning the project. Staetsky concluded attitudes critical of Israel did not overlap with anti-Semitism, whereas Allington et al., included a definition that blurs the two. It is this which accounts for the yawning gap between the 2017 and 2019 'evidence', an alteration in definitions, not some sudden sociological seismic shift. It is a superb example of a defective methodology, or lack of one, confirming the bias of its drafters.
Apply the same method to any discriminated community, Afro-Americans, Muslims in Western countries, Gypsies, African immigrants in Europe, and you would get an even stronger picture of teetering on the brink of apocalyptic fears. Sociology characteristically is comparative: this is autistic. Still, in this web-driven world of perceptions, the old sociology's sense of the primacy of material reality -social structures -is all but lost from view. Alas. So, yes, it qualifies as RS, but isn't worth a nob of goatshit, other than to register what the body commissioning it wants to believe, desires the public believe, and aspires to affect the forthcoming elections and future legislation to impel judicial bodies in GB to treat even political attitudes as crimes penally sanctionable.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I am only requesting that the article is updated to reflect the more recent research, and the differences between the methodologies before and after the involvement of a world-renowned research university can be duly noted. It is just wrong to have outdated information in the article when the same organisations conducting it have updated their research.Interestingtimes456 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
When entered that 'information' won't 'update' anything referring to separate studies like that of Staetsky. I may have missed something but is Allington updating something we already quote from him? If so, fine. But if not, the conclusion of that group will follow the conclusions drawn by other (in my view better, but that is not relevant) researchers. Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I see now that effectively the Yougov piece inverts the conclusions it arrived at in 2017. Both items are relevant. The problem is that the Campaign Against Antisemitism's original methodology was harshly criticized (a) for its incompetence and (b)its overblown conclusions of a rather hysterical nature (likening GB today to the 1930s), etc. See here. They no0w appear to enlist Allington at King's College to make the same heated conclusions a false methodology produced, but with greater technical sophistication. However, the definition used is one widely challenged. (The pity is that this furore will probably be cited in the future as one more example of Merton's self-fulfilling prophesy after Corbyn loses the election. It will be hard for significant numbers of disappointed voters not to blame in part the intense lobbying over anti-Semitism as one reason for his defeat. Sigh)Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's BS research clearly designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion by a group with an obvious political agenda. I imagine that the CAA were rather embarrassed that their previous research was used to undermine their claim of an exceptional AS problem in Labour. If it's included then include the (rather loaded) questions asked to reach the conclusion, and let the readers decide whether it constitutes antisemitism or not. G-13114 (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we can do that. It should be part of a sentence or two, summarizing the 2017 survey they did with this 2019 result. One should simply keep an eye out for competent specialist reviews of it, which should be forthcoming. Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

State of the article

I know many people feel passionately about the topic, and will differ on whether Labour is anti-semitic (disclaimer: my POV is that Labour is not anti-semitic, but that it contains some anti-semites and a too ambivalent leader). Regardless of views, though, I hope everyone could agree that this article is in a horrible state. It is a very long section of trivia. Proponents adding a paragraph each on random persons A, B or C saying Labour is anti-semitic, critics adding a paragraph each on random persons D, E or F saying Labour is not anti-semitic. Around 80-90% of the article could be summed up in "some think Labour is anti-semitic, and some think it's not". Could not something be done to cut back on the countless random positions on both sides to at least produce a more coherent text? Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If you go back over the talk page archive you will see this is not a new issue. The problem has always been that no one can agree on what to remove.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Jeppiz is correct, this is a silly mess. It can't be fixed except if all those who have edited it abstain and a few outside wikipedians with a record for going over an overworked article rewrite it with close care for the kind of criteria required for at least a GA article. The great error of both sides lies in trying to persuade the readership one way or another, with the inadvertent result than few will read it because of the resulting jumbling clusterfuck of one-the-one-hand-on-the-other juxtapositioning, ideally one could just sum up the for and against material in succinct successive paragraphs, and place the names associated with either in a note for each. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Ohh I do not disagree its a mess (and I have been argue just that since (literally) day 1. But its such a contentious area (antisemitism) that I suspect most users do not want the hassle.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The closest analogies I see are the Stalinist show trials and McCarthyism: a stream of allegations of antisemitism are being used to drive sympathisers of the Palestinians from public life and even their jobs. As with these analogies, people are being condemned on the basis of past incautious remarks/ shares or association with others. Social media make sharing material easier and provide evidence for the Inquisition. The government, specifically Robert Jenrick, is seeking to extend the Working Definition of Antisemitism to disciplinary codes for local government and academia. Challenging this persecution inevitably means addressing each accusation made on Wikipedia in detail. As an early goal of the campaign is to prevent a Corbyn-led government, it has the support of the Conservative party, the corporate media and even the right wing of the Labour Party. As to what is to be done with the article, firstly, it is worth pausing any changes until a government emerges from the imminent election, as real world stakes may be lower. Secondly, as a slightly ridiculous analogy, nuclear weapon stockpiles were reduced by repeated rounds of broadly equivalent reductions on both sides. I agree that this could be done here, if someone without an axe to grind wishes to take it on, as sugggested by others. Jontel (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both Nishidani and Slatersteven for your relevant input. I agree it's a contentious issue and it may be hard to fix. The off-topic rant that I removed for obvious WP:SOAPBOX illustrate the problem, trying to hijack even a discussion about the state of the article with irrelevant conspiracy rants about corporate media. As long as the article is mainly edited by such users, it will never improve. I do not intend to take sides by that comment, there are users with the opposite POV who is similarly non-constructive, digging out every little minor thing and trying to turn it into "evidence" of anti-semitism. As already said, the problem is with both sides. That is the very problem, it seems to have become a race to the bottom, establishing some kind of balance between the two sides, but at appallingly low level where I doubt anyone will get past the first paragraphs. I very much agree with Nishidani that the best solution would be some good outside Wikpedians to rework it while the non-constructive ones step back. From a cursory look at the history of the article, we seems to be at the opposite extreme. Most serious users have just given up trying to establish some quality, and only the most ideologically driven remain. Jeppiz (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't single out Jontel. What appears to have happened was that, in deference to the very strong alarmist reportage in the media in what was basically political spin to advantage in a period of instability over Brexit, a decline in the conservative vote, and a perceived possibility that Corbyn's socialist vision might triumph (highly unlikely) sent alarm bells ringing. So, both his wiki bio and this became upmarket venues for battling the pros and cons. Those who tried to balance the assault on Labour (which had a certain legitimacy in technical Wikipedia terms because we are supposed to reflect mainstream reportage, which however was notably skewed), insisted (also with some reason) on a tit-for-tat balancing. But the sourcing for the latter was not newspapers, which were slanted (given their control by three media groups notoriously hostile to Labour unless it got onside) but less prominent, often minoritarian media venues,- even if the authors had a certain competence - which in turn were challenged as WP:Undue, and WP:Fringe by the same block pushing to skewer Corbyn's Labour. It was an excellent example of using strict Wikipedia criteria not to obtain WP:NPOV, but to ensure that the majoritarian slant was showcased. Everybody who participated was caught up in this entangled bartering. Hence, as you say, we got this mess.
Technically, when you have a mediatic hullaballoo mirrored at length in an article, the sober thing is to go for a highly synthetic and concise summary style, in revision by good drafting technicians from outside.
If there is some mechanism to achieve that intervention, it should be called on. Since we should focus on the factual record, that translates as
  • (a)historical background
  • (b)listing the most notable incidents.
  • (c)Synthesizing with equal time, in summary style, the arguments for and against, without personalizing them.
  • (d)Providing a section that surveys the extensive academic and media studies analysis of the facts regarding these accusations (I have listed the main ones on my page). It is true that these meta-analyses tend to undercut the hysteria of the anti/toxic case. But this is the sort of remedy to balance the coverage of the incidents in (b).
I've always thought, though this will never be endorsed, that a revised, calmer, neutral version should retain in some kind of see also section, a link to the page as it was, flush with details from both angles, if only to conserve for the reader all the work on links to sources if the readership wishes rapid access to a completer survey of them. It is also a matter of respect for the work done, even if that work was motivated by the tit-for-tat logic. With Wikipedia articles like this, editors are supposed to do all the googling, paraphrase and summary that the readership can do, but prefers to access more rapidly by relying on someone who wasted their time doing precisely this compilation. By linking to the troubled, detail-crammed text before it was rewritten to GA quality, they could get at a glance and a click all of the sumptuous detail a few might be keen on looking for.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually A good model (even if it does still list some pretty trivial nonsense) is Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
18 out of 21 sections of Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party deal with the history prior to 2005, i.e. it lives up to its name. Only 1 section of 8 here deals with history prior to 2005, meaning there is is a massive WP:Recentism bias, and the title is defective, since it is overwhelmingly about Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, which indeed would be a more appropriate name for it. If the conservative model were adopted, it would mean massive expansion of anti-Semitic aspects prior to 2005, and severe reduction of the Corbyn brouhaha coverage.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know, that is my point.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I can see how my previous comment could seem like an opinion piece but, in this case, the real world context greatly affects the article. Firstly, since 2015, there are dozens of prominent media articles on this every week, often targetting individuals, and this is continuing, so the moral panic atmosphere makes creating a dispassionate encyclopaedia article difficult. Secondly, a leftist party, by definition, supports the 'oppressed', which typically includes minorities. So, Labour has opposed any attacks on British Jews, pre and during Corbyn's leadership. By the same token, it is sympathetic to the Palestinians. Every instance in the article relates to Palestine or is motivated by that. The only exception is historical references to 19th century finance capital, where Labour hostility is to finance capital per se, rather than the Jewish role in it. So, the article should really be called: Labour Party support for Palestine, or Anti-Israelism in the UK Labour Party. Basing the article on an acceptance of this underlying causal motivation would help a lot. Jontel (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Jeppiz, about half of the comment you deleted was a personal view of the nature of the current Labour Party controversy, half addressed the contents of the article. Deleting other editor's comments shouldn't be done lightly and not unless they are a clear violation of talkpage policy. It would have been wiser in this case to ask Jontel to delete or redact his comment. The deletion and the use of hyperbolic vocabulary such as "rant" produce an effect indicating a battleground mentality and tends to make it appear as though YOU are actually part of the problem. As always, it's probably best to treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself. Giving no quarter will likely result in no quarter being returned.     ←   ZScarpia   13:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This is why I do not think this will work, any uninvolved editors will soon be driven away by one side or the other. Simply put its too polemisized and emotive for most users to stomach.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No need to dramatize. There is nothing in this thread that anyway resembles the usual drama board antagonism. Read closely there ia a fair degree of agreement. We really should be more detached. Anyone of us can pick up things in what is written that stirs an annoyance, but often it is just minor, and harping on points of disagreement leads to losing the thread of a basic accord. Any negotiation can be stalled or concluded depending on the readiness of participants to latch onto differences or seek what is common ground. Nishidani (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Might I suggest that a sensible way forward as a step towards improving the article is to give a much higher prominence to the empirical evidence of surveys and polls as to the extent of the problem such as the comprehensive JPR study of a couple of years ago. This material is currently stranded somewhere near the bottom of the article where relatively few people will bother to read it, it should in my view be near the top. This seems like a sensible way to deal with the issue in an encyclopedia which should primarily deal in evidence and facts. The coverage of the endless media brouhaha over often fairly trivial incidents or comments which outside of the current febrile atmosphere probably wouldn't have attracted any attention, should probably be shaved down quite substantially in my view. G-13114 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with opinion polls (as they are used here) is that they are about perception of antisemitism, rather then incidents. A bit like fear of crime statistics they tell us nothing about actual incidents. Studies are a different issue, and yes we should give these far more emphasize then trivial and minor incidents. But there have not in fact been that many, partly because (I think) this really is a new issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur with what User talk:G-13114 says. Studies of the empirical evidence rely on 'fieldwork' which may, if you call it 'polling' deal with perceptions, but nearly all of our sources deal with perceptions (as newspapers feed them, and then report back on perceptions enhanced by their coverage). You cannot disentangle easily incidents from perceptions, because the incidents of anti-Semitism we list are events which were reported as proof of anti-Semitism (the Tunis gravesite event; the interpretation of a piece of art etc.) but whose anti-Semitic character is not proven. There is a significant body of evidence, meta-studies - i.e., analyses that try to detach themselves from daily newspaper sensationalism - that conflicts strongly with the impressions one gets from newspaper reportage, and, in Wikipedia, meta-studies, secondary and tertiary academic studies have more weight than the 24/7 opinions of journalists writing to a deadline. We emphasize the latter, and underplay the former, creating the biased slant - and the blob clutter of recentist coverage - which many of us find problematical.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, my point is about the over emphasis on raw opinion polls, over studies of those polls.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in after an absence to agree with Jeppiz. Huge chunks of this article are nothing but opinions. The section on the Working Definition (which could be very brief, as it there is a very comprehensive main article on the definition) has several paragraphs of criticisms, defences and rebuttals and about four sentences of actual facts. The section on "Criticism of Labour Party advocates" is nothing but different players' opinions on other players. The long and repetitive "Rebuttals" section is a compendium of lengthy quotes of mostly non-noteworthy opinion pieces from a more or less arbitrarily picked list of people some editors happen to like. To be encyclopedic, all of that needs to be slashed. We probably need a new comprehensive RfC (although I'm not sure the results of the last RfC, where there was a consensus for trimming opinion, was ever implemented). On the recentism point: It is true that historical antisemitism is under-discussed in this article and should be expanded, based on the ample scholarly sources, but it is not surprising that there is more weight on the recent period in comparison to the excellent Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party page because (a) unlike the Tories there is less history of antisemitism in Labour, and (b) it is something that has risen to considerable prominence in the last four years. There is a bit of recentism though, in that people add details of incidents as they happen without due consideration of their noteworthiness. Is recently added this attack on an unnamed rabbi (which does not seem to have anything to do with antisemitism in the Labour Party, unless I'm missing something) have a place in an encyclopedia article that covers a century or more? On studies and survey: Yes, it would be good to give more prominence to actual research and data, but not at the expense of factual accounts of incidents - but this will probably have due weight without expansion if we simply shortened the article by removing all of the editorialising. I know I keep saying this, but it seems to be getting worse not better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The sections which you propose removing or reducing seem to me to facilitate the correct interpretation: that the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party are made in general in bad faith and are designed to exclude sympathisers of Palestine from public life. That being so, they perform a useful function. Jontel (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Free download: "Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party" (2019, Verso) - Jamie Stern-Weiner (ed.)

The ebook "Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party", which contains contributions from Norman G. Finkelstein, Jeremy Gilbert, Antony Lerman, David Rosenberg and Naomi Wayne and is edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner, is available for free download from the Verso website: [6], [7].     ←   ZScarpia   09:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Greg Philo. Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller, Bad News for Labour: antisemitism, the party, and public belief. Pluto Press, 2019
Jamie Stern-Wiener, (ed.), Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party, Verso Books 2019
There is such a large amount of information in these two just published books that we probably should consider creating a main page, and adding a large amount of the material on this page to it, while leaving a précis of it here.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, The Antisemitism Wars: How the British Media Failed Their Public by Karl Sabbagh, Skyscraper Publications, 2018. RevertBob (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence ..."alleged antisemitic incidents involving Corbyn"

In the section titled, 2018 Jeremy Corbyn's backbench record, the last sentence [ As allegations of antisemitism in the party continued to receive media coverage, a number of alleged antisemitic incidents involving Corbyn from his time as a backbencher were reported. ] is a throw away sentence which is ambiguous and needs clarification, expansion or deletion on what these incidents were, what Corbyn's alleged involvement actually was; whether the incidents were directly Corbyn's, incited by him or condoned by him. Otherwise using the word "involving" is meaningless sloppy journalism and should be removed. Explain "involving Corbyn" Keep things literal here or make them litter. Davijee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davijee (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence is referring to the subsequent subsections. I have reworded it to make it clearer and more direct.Jontel (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Renaming / refocusing the article to purely the Corbyn era.

The vast majority of sources and text in the article focuses on the Corbyn era. Furthermore, the text from sections that aren't about that era tend to be more narrow and specific historical notes, without overarching discussion about the Labour party as a whole; or they are mere asides that mention them as background to the accusations about the Corbyn era rather than their own topic. Putting them all together like this raises potential WP:SYNTH issues when so few sources extend outside those eras. Even the first few sentences of the article make it unambiguous that this is actually an article about accusations of antisemitism under Corbyn, not antisemitism in the UK Labour party across its entire history. Based on that it probably makes more sense to trim the relatively small amount of earlier stuff into background / context (relying solely on sources that discuss it in that way), and to rename it to eg. Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the point about the title. Perhaps Labour Party antisemitism controversy would capture the issue/ period better. Jontel (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

2019 section

Re this diff, apart from introducing yet more opinion rather than facts into the article, I don't understand how a 2018 op ed can have been written in response to a 2019 report, so am I missing something? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Both the 2018 op ed and 2019 report look at behaviour over the previous few years. So, the 2018 op ed is not included as a direct response to Collier but as an alternate viewpoint on the subject under consideration. Jontel (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

New article: 'The Labour Party dossier into the handling of antisemitism.'

To make everyone aware, as there do not seem to be any links to it from the current article, a dedicated article on the recently leaked report, "The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014 - 2019", has been started here.     ←   ZScarpia   04:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A copy of the report, named Labour-Antisemitism-Report.pdf, has been uploaded to cryptome.org (but not by me!).     ←   ZScarpia   01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


It's perhaps worth noting here that the Executive Summary at the beginning says:

"This report is a result of the in-depth and extensive investigatory work which the Party has undertaken to comprehensively respond to the Commission’s investigation, and aims to provide a full and thorough account of the evolution of the Party’s disciplinary processes in relation to dealing with complaints of antisemitism. It sets out the evidence of what has happened, explains the evident shortcomings in the Party’s work, and assesses the improvements the Party has made in the last two years in particular. ... This report thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem in the Party, or that it is all a “smear” or a “witch-hunt”. The report’s findings prove the scale of the problem, and could help end the denialism amongst parts of the Party membership which has further hurt Jewish members and the Jewish community. This report reveals a litany of mistakes, deficiencies, andmissed opportunities to reform, develop and adapt a clearly failing disciplinary system."

With regard to the latter part of the quote, it may be of interest to read the details of higher-profile personal cases given in the following sections: 3143.3.4. Ken Livingstone; 3383.3.5. Jackie Walker; 3613.3.6. MosheMachover.

    ←   ZScarpia  

My takeaway from the internal report is: 1) some of the 600,000 people who joined Labour, most fairly recently, did express/ share extreme antisemitic views and tropes, especially conspiracy theories 2) despite condemnation of AS from party leaders, tightening of the rules on AS, multiple external and internal complaints and extensive media coverage, very little disciplinary action was taken against the antisemites until recently 3) the report puts this down to factional, managerial and supervisory issues within the relevant anti-Corbyn staff unit. Jontel (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


I've just read through one of the table of cases. Some of the reports are for using derogatory language about Zionists. I wonder why that should be seen as particularly objectionable when the use of similar language about, say, Conservatives is par for the course. On the other hand, whenever I see people reported for making remarks referring to the Rothschilds, I think, fair enough ... classic antisemitic trope (and that despite getting a bit fed up hearing the word 'trope').
It's troubling that the report's author seems to regard Dave Rich's submissions as unbiased truth.
On page 311, I think there's an interesting exchange:
"For example, on 5 August 2014 Tom Hamilton, Head of Briefing and Rebuttal, flagged that Baroness Glenys Kinnock, a member of the shadow frontbench, had retweeted a tweet on Conservative policy on the Gaza conflict that said:
It is a clear indication that government policy can be brought if you donate enough to the party.
Hamilton commented:
This looks like Glenys Kinnock retweeting an antisemitic slur …
Livesey sent this to Stewart Wood, asking:
Stew - do you think she might reconsider this tweet? Our donors will feel v queasy with this sort of baiting. She may have a point but as a front bencher it will be twisted against us v v quickly and the Jewish community will not respond well.
Best wishes.     ←   ZScarpia   02:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, politicians of all periods and cultures are often accused of greed, ambition, seeking power for their own ends, corruption, dishonesty, seeking influence, seeking media coverage, plotting, putting their own interests before national ones, promoting the interests of another country and so on. It can be hard to distinguish between accusations motivated by bias and honest opinion. Jontel (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Craig Murray has just blogged an article about the report. I think it's worth considering whether there's truth in what it says about the report's Sam Matthews content and how it affects the way that the BBC Panorama documentary, in which Matthews appeared, should be interpreted. It'll be interesting to see whether the leaking of the report might affect the legal proceedings by John Ware against Paddy French.[8]     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


For those who don't know, the article on the EHRC includes a section on the inquiry on the Labour Party. A Jewish Chronicle Article by Lee Harpin which, though he is otherwise heavily cited, isn't currently referred to, strongly criticises Labour Party treatment of the EHRC:

The Jewish Chronicle - Lee Harpin - Labour accused of election 'dirty tricks' against equalities watchdog investigating its antisemitism, 28 November 2019: Labour appeared to mount an open attack on the EHRC on Tuesday when the party’s Race and Faith manifesto was launched, containing a commitment to make the organisation “truly independent” if in government. A BBC Newsnight report on Tuesday evening, which questioned the independence of two senior figures within the EHRC, coincided with Labour’s attack on the EHRC. ... On Wednesday, when asked to comment on Labour’s attempt to frustrate the EHRC investigation a JLM spokesperson said: “The Labour Party is up to dirty tricks with the EHRC.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


Do we really need an article on everything relating to Labour and antisemitism?Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Taken literally, that's a good question, though I'm assuming that's not quite what you were getting at. There are a few peculiarities in the current article. One of them is that there are probably no, major at least, sources which give the same kind of historical treatment, bolting together material extracted from varied books which tend not to focus on the current subject itself, ranging from one about the Boer War through ones dealing with the disenchantment of the Left with Zionism and Israel. And the Lead, doesn't serve as a summary of the whole article, but focuses on the Corbyn leadership period, listing incidents. Perhaps the question was about whether we need to detail the contents of another Harpin article? I wasn't so much pointing the article out for citation of its contents, but so that editors were aware of some of the issues surrounding the EHRC inquiry, which is still ongoing. Editors who know me, would realise that I'm the very opposite of a fan of the Harpins, Dyschs and Pollards, so that I'm not highlighting the article because of perceived excellence of its contents.     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Which is pretty much my point below, this is all just an argument for a major re-write of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

As he is no longer leader do we need this to still be so much about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

I think we could drop his pro-Palestinian meetings etc. when he was a backbencher. He was not particularly influential at the time. Also, these activities are recorded in his article so briefly referring to them and link to that article should suffice. This would shorten the article when there will be continued expansion to it this year with e.g. the EHRC report, any Starmer-led initiatives and any developments from the recent internal investigation. Jontel (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps time to create an article with a title along the lines, "Labour Party amtisemitism controversy"? The current article will look pretty skinny without all the associated material. Now that the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News are folding, it would probably be a good idea to make sure that there are copies of their important website articles somewhere such as the Wayback Machine.     ←   ZScarpia   21:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what is involved, but searching on the publications produces 7,500 returns for Jeremy Corbyn and 15,000 for the Labour Party. Jontel (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
We do not need a new article, we should make this one about what its title is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is one of those where its creator has bequeathed us problems by choosing a title far more general than the subject matter he or she was focusing on. After setting the ball rolling, he or she was then sent off.     ←   ZScarpia   11:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
And, that does not stop us now making this what is now should be, not a "Jeremy Corbyn" is antisemitic article, as he is no longer even on the front bench.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that renaming this acticle "Labour Party antisemitism controversy" would better reflect events and their causes. One can hardly justify this huge article on the subject of a few Facebook shares and comments, often in private groups. Jontel (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion was actually to create a new article. The reason for that was because re-naming the current article to better reflect its original purpose has been recommended before but not got anywhere. The Labour antisemitism controversy has moved into a new phase, but is still continuing. Altogether removing large chunks of material about it from Wikipedia is premature. In any case, interest in it as a historical episode will continue. Though my suggestion was to create a new article, I too think that the best course would be to rename the current article.     ←   ZScarpia   14:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
If you mean keeping the pre 2015 material in this article, with a brief section on the 2016-20 controversy, then linking to a new article which comprises the full 2016-20 material, I would support that, too. Jontel (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's correct. As suggestions were being made to winnow out the Corbyn-era-related material from the article, one concern of mine was to avoid losing it altogether, probably to be re-written elsewhere on Wikipedia later on. As it was the original focus of the article and still forms the bulk of it, I think it makes more sense to rename the current article, as you suggested, though. One beneficial effect of that would be to keep all the talkpage discussions about the LP antisemitism controversy alongside the article where the related material appears.     ←   ZScarpia   18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
No one has said totally remove it, just reduce it. We no longer need every incident ever involving him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do not think that any material need be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The material on Corbyn's activities as a backbencher would be in his article, as it is anyway, and briefly referenced here. The post 2015 material on Labour and Corbyn's behaviour as leader would be in an article called Labour Party Antisemitism Controversy. The pre 2015 on Labour material is limited. It could either be in Labour Party Antisemitism Controversy as background or in a separate Antisemitism in the Labour Party article (I prefer the former). The article are naturally linked. An obvious question is whether to wait for the EHRC report before suggesting changes. I expect that will be argued and will not be many months away, I suppose. Jontel (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a sensible proposal, to move everything in the 2015+ period (we don't know yet if the controversy is over; it looked like it might be but the leaked report means it has flared up again) to a different, specific article, and making this a slimmer article which covers the whole history of the party. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I cannot help but wonder how this will be looked at in 100 years time, A total of (at least) 2 separate articles on (in essence) the same subject. Just so we can (what?) still, have huge amounts about a man who in 5 years time will have been forgotten? But I have had my say now, I have said what I think needs to be done.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

John McTernan

Should something be added about John McTernan's use of the anti-Semitic trope "rootless, cosmopolitan elite" in this 2011 article https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/john-mcternan-can-blue-really-become-new-red-1675050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this even relvant anymore?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the Talk page a while back and it was generally thought best not to include every instance, as the article would be far too long. Also, it would perhaps be original research to call this an issue, when it has not been so reported. Jontel (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear the consensus is that a high-profile Labour member and former staffer was anti-Semitic but because it was before 2015 it shouldn't be on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party page, have I got that right? If so you could you point me to where this consensus was agreed upon. Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to Archive 9, section 1 about whether to include non-notable figures, however this is defined. Also, if you do not have a reliable source describing his use of the term as antisemitic, that might pose a problem. However, I am just giving you background. Jontel (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven’t previously seen this. As far as I can see the barrier to including mention of this is that there appears to have been no commentary in the media calling his statement antisemitic. My search was cursory so if you know of any articles discussing this please post links. It is not mentioned on McTernan’s own wiki page. Burrobert (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There's the article where he said it, and the first google result for the term is the wikipedia article about the term and how it's antiSemitic. If you think that counts as original research can you quote the applicable part of WP:OR. Thanks. Regarding Archive 9, section 1 I think any reasonable interpretation of this would concede that a high-profile Labour staffer who worked for the party both before and after he used the antiSemetic trope fits the criteria of notability. As for whether the term is antiSemetic or not, if you don't think it is you should make some edits to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan page. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It is probably antisemitic when directed at Jews, perhaps not when directed at non-Jews, as this seems to be. You can say e.g. 'Rootless cosmopolitan' was a pejorative Soviet epithet which referred mostly to Jewish intellectuals', quoting the sources from the term's article. You cannot say that his use of the term was antisemitic unless you find a reliable source saying this as per WP:VERIFY 'In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source'. Additionally, there is a question of whether it is noteworthy if no-one in the media etc. took any notice of it at the time or subsequently. Jontel (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) i.e. WP:WEIGHT How widespread is this view of McTernan's use of the term. Jontel (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Here you go, I think this is relevant https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/union-official-told-to-cease-social-media-after-rootless-cosmopolitans-tweet/ 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well I think we've reached a consensus that the statement "In 2011 John McTernan wrote an article containing an anti-Semitic trope" is both factually accurate and verifiable 80.47.137.128 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
And I really do not see why this is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The source given here doesn't mention McTernan; it mentions Paul Embery, a union official rather than a Labour official or staffer. If your point is that it was antisemitic when Embery did it so it's antisemitic when McTernan did it, well that's synthesis so no good here. We'd need a reliable source saying that McTernan was regarded as antisemitic to meet a verifiability threshold. But I think we'd also need more for us to consider it noteworthy here, especially as he was living in Australia and wasn't working for the UK Labour Party in 2011. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify which statement is in your opinion, factually inaccurate or unverifiable:
"In 2011 John McTernan wrote an article which contained the line 'There was something of the rootless, cosmopolitan elite about New Labour's response to the new economic rule'"
"Rootless Cosmopolitan is an anti-Semitic trope"
Once we've reached a consensus on whether John McTernan wrote an article containing an anti-Semitic trope or not I'm happy to move on to a discussion on whether it's noteworthy enough to be in this article.
Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this one. "Rootless cosmopolitan elite" is an accurate description of many people in recent years who move regions and countries for employment opportunities, are open to an increasingly globalised culture and are professionally successful. It is a relevant point in relation to the New Labour ethos, as McTernan used it. Without some indication McTernan is actually referring to Jews, an inference of antisemitic intent, which referring to Stalin's misuse of the phrase would be, is speculative and would not be appropriate in a WP:BLP. In other words, it is not an antisemitic trope under any circumstances and in any context, just as saying someone is greedy or has too much power are not. Jontel (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion. There's a surfeit of reliable, verifiable sources stating it is specifically an anti-Semitic trope. See for example
What are the reliable, verifiable sources for your opinion that it isn't at anti-Semitic trope? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
They are perfectly ordinary words. Just because Stalin misused them as a coded reference 70 years ago does not mean that people do not use them based on their dictionary definitions, particularly as people today in many countries are vastly more rootless and cosmopolitan than they were then, both between countries and within them, which is what McTernan was referring to and which does not relate to any suggestion of national disloyalty. I am not quite sure what words one would use which would better convey rootless, cosmopolitan and elite, though no doubt there are alternatives. Here are some examples of their non pejorative use just from the first Google screen:
No-one owns the language. 17:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear your position is "all the politicians, academics, and experts who have said in the verifiable sources that the term is an anti-Semitic trope are wrong"? Can I also check if you have any objections to me updating the wikipedia page for Rootless cosmopolitan to reflect the fact that numerous politicians and academics have described it as an anti-Semitic trope? Also can you confirm you will be removing the references to it on the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party page since you don't consider it be an anti-Semitic trope? Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, I think it's OR to combine one source quoting McTernan using the term and others saying that the term is antisemitic to make the statement that he used an antisemitic trope. Given that it didn't generate any coverage at all, it's difficult to justify including this when it's already a pretty long article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a consensus on wikipedia that the term is widely considered to be an anti-Semitic trope. See Rootless cosmopolitan. Can you quote or reference the specific part of WP:OR you think is applicable here? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by paraphrasing what reliable sources have said. WP:VERIFY As no-one has expressed any concern about what McTernan wrote, there is nothing to add that can be verified. WP:WEIGHT That some people have expressed concern about other people writing similar things is of no relevance. Your attempt to establish a Wikipedia view on an issue is entirely outwith Wikipedia processes precisely because we base articles on other sources, not on our own views. Jontel (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

Requested change: Add a new subsection and paragraph to "surveys and studies" section based on newly published research about antisemitism on Twitter

Online Antisemitism A longitudinal and data-driven study conducted by Ozalp et al. looking at the online discussions around Jewish identity on Twitter from, UK-based accounts between October 2015 and 2016 found that the antisemitism debate on Labour party was also observed on Twitter conversations. Using supervised machine learning methods, the study classified all tweets about Jews or Jewish identity sent within the study period as antisemitic or not and found that antisemitic subset constituted 0.7% of the 2.7 million tweets. The researchers found that "the highest peak in the complete study period for all tweets [mentioning Jews or Jewish identity] is around 28 April 2016, the day that Ken Livingstone was suspended from the Labour Party, and the day after Naz Shah MP was suspended, both for alleged antisemitic comments". In addition to the peak of all tweets mentioning Jews or Jewish identity, the researchers observed that the "the highest peak in antagonistic tweets is late April/early May 2016, following the Shah/Livingstone events". The paper concluded "offline events, such as the antisemitism row in the Labour party, can trigger online discussion around Jewish identity and antisemitic sentiments".

The article also presents visualisations of antisemitic tweets over time in which the peak around Livingstone and Shah events are clearly visible. Those figures can displayed in this section.

https://journals.sagepub.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/sage/journals/content/smsa/2020/smsa_6_2/2056305120916850/20200617/images/large/10.1177_2056305120916850-fig2.jpeg https://journals.sagepub.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/sage/journals/content/smsa/2020/smsa_6_2/2056305120916850/20200617/images/large/10.1177_2056305120916850-fig1.jpeg

Article DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120916850 Suggested Citation: Ozalp, S., Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., Liu, H., & Mostafa, M. (2020). Antisemitism on Twitter: Collective Efficacy and the Role of Community Organisations in Challenging Online Hate Speech. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120916850 Academeegal (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This change seems significant enough (you're proposing adding a new subsection) for it to be controversial. Therefore, I think it should probably be discussed with other editors on this talk page first. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be a study of anti-semitism on Twitter, which is not the subject of this Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That offline events prompt related online discussion is presumably to be expected on any topic at any time and does not sound particularly worth adding, even if there was media coverage, which has not been noted in this case. Jontel (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Details of official Report in opening

I noticed that recently the article's opening, explains that the official report by the Labour Party concluded "that there was 'no evidence' that antisemitism complaints were treated any differently than other forms of complaint" etc.

However I feel that this misses out another important conclusion of the report which is that the report notes that it ""thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem in the Party" (see here, first paragraph)

I feel that for the sake of neutrality, this point should be mentioned.

So all information should be left in, with the following sentence added:

The report, however, did state that it "thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem in the Party".

Thank you.


In addition, section 7.2 should also have this same point mentioned. Thanks.

Mrclapper1 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. In my opinion, stating that the report found "no evidence" is a good enough summary of its contents, and to state that it "disproves" anything without also including information on disagreement with that conclusion would imply that the conclusion is correct, violating WP:NPOV. In any case, I think adding this would require a discussion and a consensus, and it is not an uncontroversial change that can be immediately enacted through an edit request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartan357 (talk • contribs)


This point has already been on this article until it was removed recently by Jontel, so therefore there was clearly already a consensus to mention this fact. It was only removed with the justification that the source was not reliable, so surely the way to remedy it would not be to remove it without a discussion and without a consensus, but to add sources which all should agree are reliable, which is what I am proposing.
Regarding your point that to state this fact without including information on its disagreement would violate neutrality, I don't understand - we are only stating what is written in the report. How do you allow the report's statement of "no evidence" to be written in the article without information on its disagreement? All I am doing is requesting proper neutrality by including this pretty major conclusion of the report, because by excluding it, as BobFromBrockley says below, leaves it unbalanced.Mrclapper1 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


I strongly support this edit. The subject of this WP article is after all antisemitism in the Labour Party, and not Labour's compliance and disciplinary processes, and it was a pretty major conclusion of the leaked report, highlighted in the executive summary, that there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the party. While there might be an argument that this is too much detail for the lead (although exludinng it leaves the lead summary of the leaked report unbalanced), it's truly bizarre to not mention it in the section on the leaked report. Re Tartan357 comment, Wikipedia should not say in its own voice that the report proves or disproves anything (especially pending the outcome of the Forde Inquiry) but we should be clear that the report claims to disprove the assertion that there is no problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at the edit history. Jontel justified removing this fact from the lead by saying Hope Not Hate are "not a reliable source for antisemitism". I don't know how that statement could be justified (I would contest it at the RSN if it were accepted here), but in any rate the report's own article (which has had this quote in the lead for some time) has four sources for the same quotation (Hope Not Hate, Jewish Chronicle, The Times and the NE Chronicle). Jontel justified removing it from 7.2 by saying "Nothing to do with the Unit, in extremely vague terms and a straw man i.e. not stating who made such a suggestion". The first point makes sense in that the section title is "Internal investigation into Labour's Governance and Legal Unit", but I would argue that if it is one of the main conclusions of the report it is unbalanced and misleading to remove it. The points about vague and straw man aren't relevant, as this is not our words but the report's.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To give this statement prominence is in my view undue as it is tendentiously expressed and does not say anything that Labour Party leaders and senior staff have not said a number of times over the last five years. Indeed, Formby has been regularly reporting case statistics and these are in the article. It is not at all the case that the statement is one of the main conclusions: as the title indicates, the report does not seek to analyse antisemitism in the Labour Party but the work of the unit concerned. Consequently, the report does not obviously justify the statement in the report or elsewhere. It talks in passing of the scale of the problem but also that it was confined to a few members. It would be better to say that the report provided statistics and examples of reported cases. Simply because the statement was in the eight page executive summary is no more a reason for its inclusion that any other part of the summary. Jontel (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The executive summary is eight pages, but it's very big font and small paragraphs, so this statement, on the first page of the summary, is not exactly buried or in passing. Indeed, it is clear that combating denialism is a key take home: This report thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem in the Party, or that it is all a “smear” or a “witch-hunt”. The report’s findings prove the scale of the problem, and could help end the denialism amongst parts of the Party membership which has further hurt Jewish members and the Jewish community. Contrary to saying that the problem was confined to a few members, the executive summary says this: In 2016, the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party could be attributed to a small number of individuals who had long held antisemitic views - some of them new joiners, some long-standing members - as well as individuals who had inadvertenly strayed into antisemitic discourse through apparent ignorance, often linked to passionately-held views on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In 2019, the problem of antisemitism is more widespread, because a specific discourse has developed around “Labour and antisemitism” which in itself has antisemitic undertones and has aggravated the problem. It then goes on to spend three or four paragraphs explaining why the scale of the problem became significant by 2019. To summarise the report without noting this conclusion, which is directly relevant to the topic of this WP article, is deeply misleading. It's not up to us to say whether the report justifies this claim or not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please don't reopen the edit request without a clear consensus, i.e. while the discussion is ongoing. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Other examples.

2012 Corbyn in an interview with Press TV said that "the hand of Israel" was possibly behind the August 2012 Sinai attack. These comments resurfaced when he became leader and was mentioned in Haaretz and historian Dominic Green. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-pro-palestinian-jeremy-corbyn-has-never-really-cared-about-muslim-suffering-1.7583563 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-labour-partys-jewish-problem https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/uk-labour-leader-corbyn-voices-conspiracy-theory-against-israel-in-2012-563714

Green in his article also mentions that Corbyn was head of the British chapter of Just World Trust, which at the time was defending Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy. Corbyn later apologized for this.

I think these should be added to parts that talk about Corbyn's backbench record. 108.45.91.166 (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On the first point, it is not antisemitic to speculate on Israel's involvement in an incident on its border. On the second point, if, according to the article you mention, Corbyn was on the international advisory board and led the British chapter of this obscure Malaysian organisation, he is not responsible for all of its activities. Jontel (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
On point one I meant to point out that this has been mentioned by groups as reason for the allegation of anti-Semitism in the Labour party. Haaretz is one of the sources rated highly by Wikipedia. In regards to part two that is a fair point, but I thought that including it would be like the Facebook groups also mentioned in the article.108.45.91.166 (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended Protection edit request

Under 2020 -> Sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey there is a misplaced quotation mark.

Starmer said that the article should not have been shared by Long-Bailey" as it contained anti-Semitic conspiracy theories"

should read

Starmer said that the article should not have been shared by Long-Bailey "as it contained anti-Semitic conspiracy theories"

LetterC (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jontel (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Labour antisemitism claims pre Corbyn

Did Labour antisemitism claims only start with Corbyn's leadership. For instance should there be a place in this article for the 2005 Labour flying pigs and Fagin posters antisemitism claims? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/01/advertising.politicsandthemedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Claims comprise section 2.1 of the article Jontel (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Writing in Last Paragraph of overview which gives inaccurate ideas

"In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced an inquiry into whether Labour had "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish". In April 2020, an 860-page report into the handling of antisemitism by the party concluded that there was "no evidence" that antisemitism complaints were treated any differently than other forms of complaint, or of current or former staff being "motivated by antisemitic intent".[15] In October 2020, the EHRC published its report, finding that the party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination". The EHRC found that there were 23 instances of political interference by staff from the leader’s office and others and that Labour had breached the Equality Act in two cases.[16][17] Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party and had the party whip removed on 29 October 2020 "for a failure to retract" his assertion that the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been overstated by opponents.[18]"

This makes it seem on reading that their was an independent investigation into anti-semitism, but the investigation was carried out by Labour itself. The fact it was 860-pages also makes no sense to add. It also inaccurately stated the ways the Equality Act were breached as two cases, giving the idea only 2 problems were found and not that two laws were used to support labour anti-semitism. The EHRC also says "After the Labour Party submitted its final evidence to us, an 850-page report titled ‘The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019’ was leaked to the press on 12 April 2020. We were not informed that this report was being prepared and it remains unpublished. It was not proportionate for us to require the Labour Party to provide the evidence underlying the report.", yet the claims the report was published

Here's what I suggest it should change to:

In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced an inquiry into whether Labour had "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish". In April 2020, a report run by the Labour party into the handling of antisemitism by the party, which remains officially unpublished, was leaked, and concluded that there was "no evidence" that antisemitism complaints were treated any differently than other forms of complaint, or of current or former staff being "motivated by antisemitic intent".[15] In October 2020, the EHRC published its report, finding that the party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination". The EHRC found that there were 23 instances of political interference by staff from the leader’s office and others and that Labour had breached the Equality Act in two ways.[16][17] Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party and had the party whip removed on 29 October 2020 "for a failure to retract" his assertion that the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been overstated to undermine his leadership.[18]

Opening Blurb

Of course a opening sentence should state Labour was found to be anti-semitic in a major investigation, not the fourth paragraph

"the social media activity of 14 Labour Party members showed a pattern of greatly increased references to Israel, antisemitism and British Jewry"

Diff Why is this worthy of note? Anonymous journalist at the Jewish Chronicle talking about a report by a blogger (article nom for deletion) Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the page up for deletion. The section on his reports has two well-referenced paragraphs about the Labour Party. Instead of deleting this content, it should be expanded based upon those (8?) sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The Jewish Chronicle is noted as being a biased source, and including the report of some random blogger violates WP:DUE. Please stop edit-warring to push a particular POV with crap sources. Thanks. nableezy - 22:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The replacement section will probably include references from The Times, the BBC, The Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Journal, and some books. If you wish you can partially preview it, and give feedback now, as it will be based upon the 1st and 3rd paragraphs in this section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the sourcing, why is the social media activity ("references") of 14 Labour Party members of interest? Have they been expelled? Or what? Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This JP article discusses that study in depth including answering your question: [9] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your edit, due and appropriately sourced.Selfstudier (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As in other articles, where this incessant push to include the rantings of a blogger as though this were tumblr and and not an encyclopedia continues, this fails weight. Being covered in a couple of newspapers does not transform an unreliable source, Collier, into a reliable one, and his opinion merits no coverage here. nableezy - 23:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Would you be willing to enter into a dispute resolution process to try to solve this disagreement? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Anybody can open an RFC, it does not require anybody's consent. nableezy - 01:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a RFC. A dispute resolution process. But they require that both people volunteer to participate. That's why I'm asking if you're willing to participate before I bother opening one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
An RFC is a dispute resolution process. If youd like a step before that NPOVN would be fine to get more views. If you mean DRN, Ive never found that to be useful. We already know the others views here, you want to insert what I think to be something that merits zero mention whatsoever. We can skip with the structured discussion between the same people as we have here and just get more outside views. nableezy - 03:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
You and Huldra seem to be collectively seeking to remove every mention of "David Collier" from wikipedia. Your basis for doing so is in large part based on your belief that his reports, which some RS discuss in detail, are the "rantings of a blogger". Am I wrong in saying that?
Is there some way to address this issue as a whole, instead of opening a separate RFC for each and every article. That seems like it's just adding a ton of work for everyone. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong in saying that. You are seeking to include an opinion from a non-expert on topics that have coverage by actual experts. Yes, newspapers report that Collier says so and so happened. That much is not in dispute, that is a verifiable statement. However, since Collier has no known academic work, no known qualifications, and no known citations to his work from other reliable sources, his opinions do not have the WP:WEIGHT required to include in encyclopedia articles. One more time for those that didnt hear it in the back. This is not a compendium of everything a newspaper reported. This is not a collation of analyses by non-experts and "independent researchers". It is an encyclopedia article, and quoting a blogger is something that may be acceptable in a newspaper article, but it is not in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you disputing that you referred to his reports as the"rantings of a blogger"?
We do agree on one thing. If a single newspaper discusses one of his report it absolutely doesn't belong on a page like this. However, when 4 different sources speak about this report, then that's a different story. It's got significant enough coverage to belong here.
And out of curiosity, are you willing to join me in applying similar standards on the Anti-Palestinianism page? Everything that isn't written by an expert cited by scholarly works should be stricken from the article? Or is it two completely different standards when speaking about Jewish racism and anti-Palestinian racism? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not disputing that Ive referred to his blog posts as the rantings of a blogger. That however is not why I think he merits no mention on this page. I dont think I said "single newspaper", try not to distort my comments again. I pretty clearly used the plural "newspapers". Yes, his report got some coverage. It is a verifiable fact that Collier wrote this report. But, again, so what? It had no impact, it has no source even claiming it to be accurate. So, again, fails WP:WEIGHT. If another article contains material from some unremarkable blogger then yes by all means remove it. If some other article contains long-winded quotations to some non-expert, yes, remove it. But, again, please use this talk page for its purpose, that be to discuss the article Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. nableezy - 04:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's the quote I was responding to: "This is not a compendium of everything a newspaper reported." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re the whole paragraph: Huldra is correct that onus is on those seeking to include to get consensus and so this should be kept out for now. However, I think it is clear from the number of RS citations of this report that the report is noteworthy in this particular item, even though the blogger who wrote the article may not himself be notable enough for his own article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's just put the offending paragraph here so we can easily see what we are talking about:

=

Investigative journalist David Collier compiled a 200-page dossier on the British Labour Party, which was submitted to the EHRC.[1] The dossier documented 14 case studies where he claimed Labour Party members had no interest in Israel until Corbyn became the party leader, and then they became "radicalised".[2][3] The report also alleges an "ethnic cleansing" of Jewish voices from Labour Party online forums.[4]

References

  1. ^ Malnick, Edward (4 August 2019). "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  2. ^ "Labour members radicalised into attacking Jews and Israel after Corbyn became leader". The Jewish Chronicle. 5 August 2019. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  3. ^ Singer, Benjy (6 August 2019). "Corbyn turns Labour members against Israel and Jews". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
  4. ^ Philpot, Robert (28 August 2019). "UK Labour members 'radicalized' on Israel since Corbyn's election, report claims". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 5 December 2021.

=

and this is what is in the Collier article atm:

=

He compiled a 200-page dossier on the British Labour Party, which was submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) as part of their probe into whether Labour is institutionally antisemitic.[1] In his research, Collier trawled through thousands of social media accounts and Facebook groups.[2] In the dossier, he documented 14 case studies where he claimed Labour Party members had no interest in Israel until Corbyn became the party leader, and then they became "radicalised".[undue weight? – discuss] [1][3] The report also alleges an "ethnic cleansing" of Jewish voices from Labour Party online forums.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b "Labour members radicalised into attacking Jews and Israel after Corbyn became leader". The Jewish Chronicle. 5 August 2019. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  2. ^ Malnick, Edward (4 August 2019). "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  3. ^ Singer, Benjy (6 August 2019). "Corbyn turns Labour members against Israel and Jews". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
  4. ^ Philpot, Robert (28 August 2019). "UK Labour members 'radicalized' on Israel since Corbyn's election, report claims". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 5 December 2021.

=

So the given refs are identical in both and the wording cut back a little and altered slightly. Notice the "undue weight" tag in the Collier version (afaics that still applies here). We have a "report" by a blogger about 14 MPs (? not sure, I haven't looked at it) claiming they were radicalized (? again, not sure). Do we have any evidence that the report was considered? Or whether it had any impact? Or is it merely statements about Collier, the report and what it alleges? If it was not considered and had no actual impact then it is just one of how ever many reports, letters and what not submitted to the EHRC and therefore UNDUE here. Is there an article anywhere for "notable" reports by unnotable persons that had no impact? That is where this should go.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It lacks weight for inclusion. Note too that the only major UK publication cited was the Telegraph, but it fails rs as an opinion piece rather than a news article. In general too we don't publish the results of individual studies but wait to see how accepted they are in academic literature. There is no mention either whether the writer has submitted his report for peer review. TFD (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_British_Labour_Party/Archive_11&oldid=1211325577"