Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Fake Twitter accounts posing as Corbyn supporters - Asa Winstanley article in the Electronic Intifada

Electronic Intifada - Asa Winstanley - Fake Labour accounts fueling “anti-Semitism crisis”, 17 January 2019.     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, EI is hardly a reliable source, as described at WP:RSP. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
besides, 10 accounts is not what makes Labour antisemitic. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
True, but as some of the evidence is things like twitter or facebook posts it may indicate this could in fact be partially agent prvocatorism. But the point about RS is valid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:RSP says about EI "Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be properly attributed." so it doesn't appear rule out using it completely so long as it's attributed. G-13114 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a really marginal piece of info (that a few apparently antisemitic Twitter accounts, that nobody ever cited, turned out to be fake), reported by a fringe website, with little or no take up by reliable sources. I can't see how it passes any noteworthyness test. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jewdas Passover event‎

YES
There is consensus to include the proposed text with citations from the reliable sources mentioned in the RfC statement. Most editors consider Charlotte Nichols a spokesperson for Jewdas in this context, and believe that her comments are due in the article. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

This was removed as a result of the recent RfC based on it primarily being sourced from an article written by the Charlotte Nichols. However, it's been since identified that her article has received wider coverage in other RS.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. RevertBob (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Can these sources be added to the section ensuring that the text follows the content these secondary sources have singled out as proposed. RevertBob (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Numerous sources describe her as one of the attendees of the Jewdas Seder. RevertBob (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No. We just closed a RfC on this on 01:32, 3 December 2018 - this discussion is over, and reopening a day after the close? We have too much commentary in the article, particularly by individuals of very little not. The Jewdas event received fairly wide international coverage, Seeing a few more quotes from Nichols does not sway the scales here. Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In the same section we have a quote from the president of Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush. Her contributions are not commentary but a reaction to someone involved in the event that was republished by RS which would be NPOV to include. RevertBob (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I've clarified this on the RfC now, I add it the the discussion initially. RevertBob (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm still confused by the question. Are you proposing that we re-add this with the new sources? NickCT (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, here's the the proposed content. RevertBob (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry. Missed the link the first time. I've voted below. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Generally I'm against adding commentary from randoms, but in this case, the individual in question seems to be speaking for the group involved in the incident. Furthermore, this particular person has been tied to the incident by several high-quality RS; as such, it seems due that she's mentioned. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes; extensive secondary coverage is of course the most important criteria for whether or not an opinion should be included. --Aquillion (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as per my comments in the previous RfC and the Jeremy Newmark above. There is enough secondary coverage to suggest she is a relevant, noteworthy authority on this particular incident, and proposed text is concise and encyclopedic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the reference seems just as relevant as others listed - if not more so - and provides a fair counterpoint. However, the section seems to be quite long for a minor kerfuffle.--Rpclod (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Spokesperson for the group being discussed who is presenting their views and providing context for Corbyn's visit that is relevant and noteworthy which has received secondary coverage from RS. RevertBob (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • "The Jewish community is not one monolithic bloc; part of its beauty is in its plurality and diversity," Ms. Nichols added, arguing that it was "absolutely right," for the Labour leader to "engage with the community at all levels." The New York Times.
  • But Charlotte Nichols, one of the attendees of the Jewdas event, said Corbyn was right to attend the gathering. "Many of last night's attendees are absolutely part of the 'mainstream community.'" Reuters.
  • "The primary grievance in recent years has been that too often we feel like we need to be apologetic for being Jewish in left-wing spaces, and apologetic for being left-wing in Jewish spaces. At last night's Seder, we could unapologetically be both." Jewish News.
  • Charlotte Nichols, Young Labours' women's officer, uses an article for LabourList, to commend Corbyn for attending the Jewdas event. The Guardian.
  • Charlotte Nichols, who attended the Jewdas Seder said Corbyn should be "commended" for his presence at the event not attacked. "It is not for non-Jewish people, in criticising Corbyn's attendance, to determine what is and isn't a legitimate expression of the Jewish faith. Many of the criticisms I've seen are themselves anti-Semiticm" she wrote on Labour List. HuffPost.
  • As Charlotte Nichols, summing up a range of passionate, angry responses among young Jewish leftists, wrote for LabourList: "It is not for non-Jewish people, in criticising Corbyn's attendance, to determine what is and isn't a legitimate expression of the Jewish faith. Many of the criticisms I've seen are themselves anti-Semitic." Jacobin.

As per Bobfrombrockley, I suggest these sources are added ensuring that the text follows the material these secondary sources have singled out. RevertBob (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this goes against the policy of including only commentary/responses from those directly involved - we could have a whole other article on just responses to the incidents described here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We have had an RFC on this, if you think it was incorrectly closed it needs to be raised at an appropriate notice board. What should not be done is another RFC on the same topic hours after the last one closed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it was incorrectly closed but all the voting and discussion was based on the inclusion of content from the original article Nicholls wrote. This RfC is about content which was republished in other RS. RevertBob (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not need to be an RFC if you have new sources we were not aware of before. RFC's should only be used where no consensus can be archived.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Based on your recommendation, I've added the proposed content from some of the RS. RevertBob (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing RfCs

I am in process of closing the RfCs that haven't yet been closed; I anticipate I will not get to all of them in the time I have today. I will note, as others have, that having so many RfCs and then having those RfCs left open for so long, means that there could be issues introduced to the article as a whole while implementing any of the RfC results that weren't already implemented while editors waited for a close. Some of the RfC results also fairly necessitate further discussion. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now finished closing the remaining RfCs. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.

This RfC is about inclusion/exclusion of eight different opinions and positions that have been challenged due to NPOV/UNDUE. Please refer to Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Undue content removed and Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Views of Deborah Lipstadt for previous discussion related to this RfC. This multi-part RfC is organized into separate sections - one for each bit. Please indicate Support, Exclude, or Modify (clearly state what to modify) along with a rationale for each sub-section you !vote in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC procedure

  • Objection, why do we list some as individuals and others as sections? I also not not all opinions are covered here. Also the issue of polls was raised and op-ed pieces, but they are not mentioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    It may be possible to start an additional RfCs. The content listed here was challenged by reversion, and was discussed specifically in the two talk sections above - as opposed to general discussions on a topic.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Most of this article has been, including many of the polls ever since this article was created. What was discussed above was all opinions, not some. And again why are some listed as individual opinion and others as group opinions (especially as in some insistences only one of the opinions in the section has been objected to)?13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
Each RfC subsection I opened up, was based on a reversion of an actual edit. In some cases - it makes sense to discuss by section.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
And in some cases the material originally was reverted when it was separate. It makes it impossible to reasonably vote after all one "modify" vote may be Keep X and remove Y and another Remove Y and keep X". This makes achieving any real consensus difficult.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole RFC looks like a mess to me. It's hard to discern that much consideration has been given to neutrally representing the different positions, the major ones being: that the Labour Party under Corbyn has a major antisemitism problem; that smears and misreprentation are being used to suppress anti-Israel elements in the Labour Party which, under Corbyn, is being led for the first time by somebody highly unsympathetic to Zionism. The results of the RFC appear to be being based on vote counting which is explicitly not what the establishment of consensus is supposed to be about. The selection process looks fairly uneven to me. I think that it is fairly poor that lesser known commentators writing in good-quality publications have been excluded while celebrity journalists, academics etc., writing in a fairly off the cuff manner, have been included.     ←   ZScarpia   13:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC.1 Charlotte Nichols

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is no it should not be included. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Wiki guideline is to use reliable sources not major news outlets aka mainstream sources. RevertBob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Calthinus: How does this differ from the question of Jeremy Newmark? Both are British Jewish political advocacy groups. I think it'd be a double standard to exclude this and retain that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: for me the difference is rank. If thhis page weren't already bloated I would be fine with including. But he (chairman) is clearly higher up than her (Women's Officer for Young Labour); in Jewdas she is merely a "member" -- not notable. Imo. Where it was somewhere in between, the "spokeswoman" my !vote was include.--Calthinus (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest the WP:NPOV requirements would outweigh the rank concern. However if we're concerned about page bloat we could remove both per WP:NOTOPINION which would satisfy me less than retaining both but more than retaining one but not the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I've voted for excluding some of the "Corbyn-unfavorable" material -- Gilad Erdan for one as he is internal to Israel and thus doesn't pass the threshold for me. I'm all for making compromises but when we're two of like twelve or so relevant editors here it's not as useful for the page. In the end I have to confess bloating the page does mitigate POV problems as no matter how much it is one way or not, readers will not resent or even notice that specifically if it happens to also be an full of huge unreadable walls of text.--Calthinus (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, but I'd counter that two editors making a reasonable compromise might get picked up by other editors as a basis for a consensus. And I think the reason we're in this mess has been because of attempts to balance-through-addition from people on both sides of the discussion, so if we don't keep the subtraction reasonably balanced we may end up in the same position again in a few weeks when new eyes come along and see either the "Corbyn's Labour is antisemitic," position or the "naw, this is just Israeli propaganda," position over-represented. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has considered the fact that some of there comments have been republished in secondary sources too[8]. RevertBob (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Charlotte Nichols RfC has been open for a month, with a clear consensus for removal. Can we go ahead a close this part of the discussion and remove her paragraph from the Jewdas section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I hope the closing editors considers that part of Nichols comments were republished in a secondary source[9] which hasn't been addressed. RevertBob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the wide coverage of antisemitism in Labour, if this has been only covered in LabourList and Jacobin - it is clearly WP:UNDUE. In assessing the significance of coverage (as opposed to whether an item passes WP:V - we assess the grade of the publishing venue. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Significant coverage relates to whether a topic is notable to have an article not whether content within a page is noteworthy - this is based on RS which this fulfils (although we have already been through all this numerous times before). The arguments of DUE are weak considering the section is about Corbyn's attendance to a sedar hosted by Jewdas so a spokesperson’s views are of importance and worthy to provide balance to the page. The coverage in in secondary source justifies inclusion but the content could be trimmed to the coverage received in the secondary source. RevertBob (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with Nichols being in the article, but it was one of the RfCs where there seemedd to be a consensus, with a very large number of exclude votes and very few include votes. If we need to have the argument again, well, it is true, as RevertBob says, that noteworthyness, as defined in WP:DUE, is about what the weight RSs say not about what mainstream sources say. However, at the moment we have 100 words devoted to an opinion piece by her in a blog, with an ex-blogger writing in an American opinion magazine as the only secondary source. That equates to a very low prominence in weak reliable sources, doesn't it? HOWEVER, she also wrote an op ed for the Jewish Chronicle[10], and her LabourList blogpost actually received some wider attention in other sources: Reuters ("Charlotte Nichols, one of the attendees of the Jewdas event, said..."[11]), Jewish News ("seder participant Charlotte Nichols said..."[12]), the NYT ("Mr. Corbyn spent more than four hours at the event, according to Charlotte Nichols, women’s officer of the party’s youth wing, who defended his presence in an article for LabourList, a pro-Labour website"[13]), the Guardian newsblog ("Charlotte Nichols, Young Labours’ women’s officer, uses an article for LabourList, to commend Corbyn for attending the Jewdas event."[14]) and HuffPo ("Charlotte Nichols, who attended the Jewdas Seder said Corbyn should be “commended” for his presence at the event not attacked"[15]). My suggestion would be to edit the current version to remove the Jacobin cit and replace it with some of these, and make sure that the text follows the material these secondary sources have singled out, ideally as a concise paraphrase rather than a long quotation. HOWEVER, that would go against the consensus that has so far been established, which is pretty strongly for deleting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.2 Comedians

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include the information added in the diff below. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

@Bangalamania: do you want to expand on your statement above here and explain what you mean by "too simplistic?" Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Baddiel and Schneider have both featured as commentators in national newspapers on antisemitism within the Labour Party, mentioned in the Guardian story on this event (egs: Schneider - New Statesman; Baddiel - The Times (paywalled), Daily Politics, but there is much much more).
I'm still a little on the fence on this one, but the 'simplistic' comment was meant to say that this isn't simply some offhand quip by a comedian on Twitter: these two comedians are prominent Jewish Labour supporters who have written about/commented on the issue of antisemitism in the UK press. Also worth noting that the two have been critical of Corbyn at times, and are not aligned with groups such as the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Labour. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm still undecided. I do think we need to be cutting opinion and that we need to do that in a fair and NPOV way. But shortening and modifying to clarify context might be good.Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_2#Antisemitism_in_the_Labour_Party_Neutrality and, curiously, some people are now argueing the polar opposite. What's changed? Sionk (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

IN my case it is that we are including a load of rather random talking heads, why not these ones. I would vote to remove all such opinions, but if some are allowed all must be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether these should be included or not, but agree it is simplistic to call them "comedians"; their significance is both are also political commentators, relatively prominent voices of the Jewish community, have written about antisemitism and about British Jews, and Labour supporters. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Precisely the point I was trying to make. I'm not vehemently against removing these comments (with the greatest of respects, they're not academics or experts in the field), but categorising Baddiel and Schneider as just "comedians" commenting on Twitter – without providing any additional context – will inevitably bias this part of the RfC towards exclusion. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.3 Expert opinions section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to not include a separate experts section (under any name). There is no consensus to include Hirsch's opinions about Corbyn. There is weak consensus to include comment from Lipstadt on Corbyn elsewhere (as has been done while this RfC remained open). There is consensus to include comment from Rich on Corbyn elsewhere (as has been done while this RfC remained open). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the Expert opinions section (or this diff be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include - Deborah Lipstadt is one of the leading living scholars on antisemitism, Holocaust, and Holocaust denial and her expert opinion on Labour has been included by top-notch publications such as the Washington Post. David Hirsh and Dave Rich aren't as notable, but both have strong academic credentials in regards to antisemitism, particularly in the UK, and are regularly included for comment by mainstream publications. This article could do with more expert opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modify Comments by Lipstadt and Hirsh should be included, but I would find a more precise sub-heading than "Expert opinions". They're not experts on the Labour Party, for example. What about "Scholars of antisemitism". Something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I could see antisemitism scholars or something similar as an alternative title.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Either "Antisemitism scholars" or "scholars of antisemitism" sounds like a better title than "expert opinions" to me. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Support rename to "Scholars of antisemitism". --Calthinus (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include It would seem an incredibly odd decision to not include the work of a prominent Holocaust scholar and expert on anti-semitism generally. To not include Lipstadt and her work would seem deeply inappropriate. Alssa1 (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modify: I agree with Alssa1 with regard to Lipstadt. Even though I have spoken on the talk page before about possibly explaining Lipstadt's view of 'softcore denial' (or linking to section on her page), she is a notable figure who should be included. Hirsh has good credentials in the area, but the focus on his views of a Labour victory or lack thereof does seem to be a little bit coatracky. Unsure about the inclusion of Rich in this section; could his views could probably be better integrated in the "new antisemitism"/"rising pro-Palestinian views" section of the article, as his work is covered there? --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Per WP:NOTOPINION in general and also per WP:FRINGE specifically for references to Lipstadt's "Softcore" holocaust denial on the basis that it has not been demonstrated that this is a term anyone else recognizes as describing a real thing distinct from denying the holocaust or not denying the holocaust. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Hirsh and Rich are highly partisan commentators with a particular agenda. Garageland66 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Rich, Exclude Lipstadt and Hirsh. Hirsh's comments are tangential to this article, and Lipstadt's views on the specific topic appear FRINGE; what is included above is also not well-defined. Rich is well-sourced and succinctly summarized.
Also, titling the section as "Expert opinions" seems bizarre in this specific context and violates WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include the opinions of experts with actual credentials are, of course, informative and relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Undecided Possibly include Rich & Hirsh maybe if Avi Shlaim & Finkelstein are kept, though I agree with Aquillion that their opinions are already presented in this article. Exclude Lipstadt due to her Fringe softcore holocaust denial accusations which go too far. Should a seperate section remain the POV pushing heading def should be changed, and the section ought to include counter viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include with section name changed: these are all notable and authoritative, leading experts on antisemitism. However, section should be kept concise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include, these are reliable sources commenting on the specific topic of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude all, at least given the article's current form. Note that these sources are already used elsewhere in the article (in fact, Rich's book is probably given WP:UNDUE weight already, elsewhere in the article); my objection in this case is that devoting an entire additional paragraph to them is WP:UNDUE, especially when we already represent their opinions elsewhere. Experts are best cited via their published works (which have in theory received the scrutiny and fact-checking WP:RS prefers); while we can cite opinion pieces by them under some circumstances, citing their opinion-pieces when we're already citing their books seems to serve no purpose beyond trying to put undue weight on their views. (I would also ask the people pushing for inclusion in an opinion-piece section if they would agree to having them their if we agreed, as a compromise, that they cannot be cited outside it - this might resolve the concern, expressed by some people above, that these are highly-opinionated sources. If anything, rather than excluding an opinion section with them, that is an argument to cite them only in that opinion section.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Simonm223, this particular edit lends UNDUE weight to Lipstadt's "softcore denial" theories and also agree with Newimpartial - but I'm not sure what to rename the section. I don't think we can name it "Scholars of antisemitism" - this just isn't how we organize articles, even when we have criticism sections. "Support" sections are even more questionable, especially in an article like this one. Seraphim System (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Include with section name fixed to avoid "Expert" without qualification. I agree that having a section like this in articles is generally poor, but given the article's current state (such as the meandering Rebuttal section that follows) it's a step in the right direction for improving the article overall in the future, perhaps merging these two sections. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Include'Appropriate expert views. . I would be very hesitant to call Lipstadt's views FRINGE, considering her eminence. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude. It's all news reports. Instead of relying on news reports, please bring in some properly reviewed sources, e.g. university-press-published books or journal articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Include Expert views there are WP:DUE no policy reason to exclude --Shrike (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude I have no objection to the opinions currently covered in the section being covered in the article. However, to single out those particulary opinions as "expert" is original-reearchish and tends to promote them above opinions stated outside the section, which could be seen as pushing a point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   16:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

at least some of it, so without knowing who I am being asked to include I will vote exclude.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • With regard to Lipstadt there's the issue that her claims that Corbyn is a softcore holocaust denier seem pretty WP:FRINGE when the man has never made a statement denying the holocaust, and when the phrase seems to have been developed specifically to call people who have never actually said anything denying the holocaust holocaust deniers for... undefined and unclear reasons. Ultimately those people who advocate for its inclusion have failed to demonstrate it is a term with any sort of wide-spread use within the academic field. And as there is no credible evidence of Labour leadership denying the holocaust or protecting members who have done so, it seems like Lipstadt's opinion is rather WP:UNDUE in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Rareness of terminology doesn't inherently make something fringe. To be fringe, it would need to be repudiated by the rest of relevant discourse. Is it?--Calthinus (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Precisely the opposite; Lipstadt's views have been mentioned in a number of studies on antisemitism, and her works overall are highly regarded in the field. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Lipstadt is one of the leading, perhaps even the foremost, scholars in the field today. The term "softcore holocaust denial" she had used in the context of Labour has received media attention - and this terminology is discussed in an academic context - scholar, as well as by the media in other contexts - Mic - US - Trump adminGuardian - US - Trump admin (and many other outlets - as anything Trump administration related....), or in the context of anti-abortion groups using the Holocaust - "Pro-life group compares abortion rights advocate to the Nazi dictator, which Jewish groups claims is 'softcore denial'", or Irish Examiner. It seems there is a bit of a IDONTLIKE here regarding the verbiage, but she isn't really saying anything outside of the norm - the IHRA working definition includes comparing Nazis to modern day (not remotely close to Nazi) Israel. Trivialization of the Holocaust (another term) - is also used for such instances in which the Holocaust is misused or is an inappropriate comparison or inference. Regardless - this is really one of the top experts here - which is why she is quoted so widely.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. It's exactly as I thought -- WP:FRINGE does not apply here.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to agree that these are not fringe views in any sense. Her "softcore" term, which she has written about extensively (not specifically in relation to the UK Labour Party) has been widely discussed and used, and repudiated by no scholars. She is about as mainstream a Holocaust scholar as there is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be repudiated to be FRINGE, it's enough that this is not widely accepted by scholars at this time. The media sources aren't enough to establish due weight here - following up on User:Icewhiz's scholar link there is an article about Softcore horror films like Erotic Nights of the Living Dead (1979) or Porno Holocaust (1981), another from Cinema journal and one from Studies in European Cinema, one about the Evangelical Gospel and another about the poetry of Sylvia Plath - we have to ask if Icewhiz reviewed these results before posting them here. Our policies recognize a difference between media and academic sources, unfortunately our editors sometimes choose to give media sources too much weight creating problem with WP:RECENTism by giving UNDUE weight to weak sources in disregard of NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
No, Lipstadt is not a "media source" she is a dignified scholar of anti-Semitism. She served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Fringe is not a euphemism for not liking it. It is not only the left she has leveled this charge at either -- she has been fairly even handed and consistent. --Calthinus (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled by this discussion. If any of you have read any scholarly work on Holocaust denial, you will know that Lipstadt is a major scholar in this field and that her concept of "softcore Holocaust denial" is widely used in academic work. ("Deborah Lipstadt refers to “hardcore” and “softcore” Holocaust denial.4 Hardcore denial refutes the very existence of the Holocaust. Softcore denial includes all types of minimization and trivialization and is more difficult to recognize and counter." -- Sineaeva-Pankowska 2014. "Deborah Lipstadt, one of the world’s best-known authorities on Holocaust denialism, called the [Trump] administration’s defence of this decision – that it wanted to be “inclusive” of non-Jewish victims – a form of “softcore Holocaust denial.”" --Margulies 2017. "historian Deborah Lipstadt... has used the term ‘soft-core denial’ to highlight the damage done by Holocaust inversion."--Klaff 2014 Other examples:[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]) And the fact that Lipstadt's views received secondary coverage in the media shows that - unlike almost any of the opinion pieces, interviews and open letters quoted in this article - it is indisputably notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The content in the edit can still be UNDUE in terms of the prominence and weight given to it in the edit in question, which is considerable. I have read scholarly work on Holocaust denial that hasn't mentioned Deborah Lipstadt or her theories at all or has defined Holocaust denial differently then Lipstadt does (including an intent to deceive requirement, for example). These definitions are far more sound then Lipstadt's. Even more relevant is the fact that this is not the article for Holocaust denial. Is this content due for this article (Antisemitism in the UK Labor Party). My point, which has not been resolved by the above comments, is that the burden to show that the edit is due for this article falls on the editors arguing for inclusion. Seraphim System (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit was not given "undue prominence". In fact it was barely visible amid the rest of the citation dump that is this page. She is a well-regarded scholar. She does not need to be referenced in every work (who is anyhow?), that isn't really how WP:DUE works, imo. There has been gallons of ink already spilled by four editors about how she is obviously due.--Calthinus (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The idea that you need to be mentioned in every single piece of scholarly work about a particular topic to be considered an authority in it is frankly absurd. And it doesn't matter if any one of us consider other definitions more sound than Lipstadt; what matters is that RSs consider her an authority, which is so obvious that denying it seems perverse to me. Lipstadt has one short sentence in this article, a concise, encyclopedic one that could be used as a model for other pieces of opinion we cite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but from what has been cited in this discussion I don't think that burden has been met. In your above comments you reference that Lipstadt has received secondary coverage in the media, so I don't think you've correctly represented my comments about the WEIGHT given to media sources in your response. It's not whether she is cited in every single piece of scholarly work, if her comments were DUE for inclusion there would probably be stronger sources available then RECENT media sources. I see some of that for her work on IHR and Holocaust denial, which is cited by other academic secondary sources, but not really for her comments on UK politics (about which she is not a recognized expert, as far as I know). Of course, part of the problem is that the article title Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is non-neutral to begin with. It should really be something like "Allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party". Seraphim System (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there are two different things here. First, is she considered an important scholar on antisemitism, and, second, are her comments about UK politics noteworthy. The former claim can be made by referring to the large number of scholarly works that refer to her, or the mainstream media reports which describe her as an expert in this field. This seems irrefutable, and the suggestion "I have read scholarly work on Holocaust denial that hasn't mentioned Deborah Lipstadt or her theories at all or has defined Holocaust denial differently then Lipstadt does" is irrelevant to that, as clearly no expert is ever cited by all publications or finds unanimous scholarly support for their positions. Her comments on antisemitism in the Labour Party are made in her capacity as an expert on antisemitism and not as an expert in the Labour Party, and so follows directly from the first. Her comments on Labour antisemitism are inevitably only covered by recent secondary sources, because they were made relatively recently - but that is not the same as saying that including them is WP:RECENTISM. (The article does need more historical material in comparison to post-2015 material, but that's a different issue.) The fact is there is a LOT of coverage in secondary sources, which is enough to show it is noteworthy. And actually Lipstadt it also quoted in at least two scholarly works on Labour antisemitism too.[21][22] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for those sources, so your argument is that the position presented in this paper [23] is widely accepted by scholars and thus due for inclusion? I would note that FRINGE is a policy that applies not to individuals, but to particular theories or arguments. I don't think we need to remove Lipstadt entirely, in fact, I think the version before Icewhiz's proposed edits covered Lipstadt's views adequately and appropriately. I'm not sure if we are all on the same page so please take a moment to review the changes Icewhiz is proposing, which are far more extensive then the one line editors have expressed support for in the above comments: [24] Given the WP:REDFLAG nature of the content on "softcore denial" and its inherent intersection with the conflict area I think we have to be cautious about whether this particular content is DUE for inclusion. Seraphim System (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I am not saying the Klaff article should be included in this article or that it is a consensus view among scholars. I was simply showing that scholars who write about antisemitism in the Labour Party have cited Lipstadt's conceptualisation of softcore denialism, and therefore it is utterly wrong to say Lipstadt's views are somehow either fringe or unrelated to our topic. Possibly Klaff should be cited too, along with other scholars on this issue, as this article is heavy on opinions and light on scholarship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing REDFLAG in the extremely widely covered comments by a noted academic on softcore Holocaust denial. It seems that some editors don't like this term being associated with Labour, but it is well sourced, widely covered (often in the title or ledes of secondary coverage of this), and by an esteemed figure in the field. One should note that comments containing holocaust denial by Labour members are being investigated by the British police.[25]. Other noted figures have made similar observations (covered in a secomdary manner) - [26], and it would seem Labour itself has admitted an incident (and follow on incident) involving denial by a Labour candidate (and the subsequent support for said candidate by the disciplinary board head who subsequently resigned).[27]Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
What part of our DUE/neutrality policy do you think says that the number of times something is repeated in an isolated news cycle determines whether it is DUE or UNDUE? This is a gross misrepresentation of what the policy actually says in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The proportion of coverage of her random comments about UK Labor made during routine press appearances, when you consider the whole of reliable sources, including books and encyclopedias on the subject is zero. Editors often exploit this to load WP:COATRACK content to articles, but what academics say to the press is not the same as their peer reviewed or cited publications (as much as editors try to pretend it is, when it suits them.) While the first version of the article had a brief and appropriate mention, the attempt to dedicate an entire section to this and title it "Expert opinions" is certainly not the intent behind our NPOV policy. I've found that this is currently one of the most prevalent problems effecting a very large amount of articles. Seraphim System (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Describing Libpstadt (and other experts on antisemitism) as an expert opinion is factual. I share your preference for academic sources - in most articles - but academic sources generally do not exist for fairly recent events (which this is - being a "hot" item for the past year or so) - leaving us with NEWSORGs for this article. We generally assess DUEness by amount of coverage in RSes - this particular stmt by Lipstadt being widely covered by multiple NEWSORGs and Lipstadt's expert opinion present in sustained coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That's why the first version is adequate. There hasn't been enough coverage in RS (yet) to justify the lengthier version. academic sources generally do not exist for fairly recent events does not justify adding lengthy cherry picked content from media sources. There are good reasons for this that I'm sure most experienced editors here won't need me to spell out, mostly having to do with balance and the level of detail in a cited secondary analysis. My views on media sources don't change from article to article. They are also not really secondary for Lipstadt because they don't offer any independent analysis, they only report the quotes. Media sources are fine for basic facts but there is very little justification to start including quotes and it is almost invariably a POV issue when it happens. It is also, generally, in almost every instance I have seen, detrimental to the readability of the article. I can't imagine opening up a real encyclopedia and finding a lengthy explanation of Lipstadt's (as of yet otherwise unpublished) comments to the media. Seraphim System (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Seraphim System that the proposed addition of the expert opinion at the top of this RfC is excessively long and we just need a tight, encyclopedic mention of Lipstadt. However, this article is full of long quotations from opinion pieces and interviews by less authoritative scholars, as well as by more or less random activists, which have had little or no secondary coverage (see RfC on opinion pieces below), so if we are looking for due allocation of weight it seems to me that the large amount of secondary reporting of Lipstadt's statements, plus her significance to scholarship in the relevant field (antisemitism) means that she deserves text more than most of these. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


This part of the RfC been open for 30 days. It is clear that there is no consensus for a section called "Expert opinions" but there seems to be consensus for including Dave Rich's views. There is still no consensus on Lipstadt and Hirsh. Can I propose we put Rich back into the article for now and make a renewed attempt at consensus around Hirsh and Lipstadt, e.g if we can develop compromise text for them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Given no responses to the Rich part of that, two weeks ago, I will reinstate him in the 2018 section, but leave Lipstadt and Hirsh and the question of whether there should be an expert opinions section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of the Rich content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include this information. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • UNDUE. While the joint editorial was international news (e.g. Reuters, NYT, WaPo, etc.) which lasting overage, comments of these 3 fringe organizations have received scant coverage - as evident in the sources to Morning Star and Ekklesia. Oryszczuk interview at the fringe, and little read, The Canary (website) and subsequent followup (on taking a leave) in the online only Pressgazette is clearly undue.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modify One could keep the opening sentence of that edit, but remove the rest of the content. The Canary is not RS and should not be used. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - Sources like the Canary are totally unreliable while the inclusion of things like Ekklesia seems to border on UNDUE. Alssa1 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • include This is an alternative viewpoint form other Jews. We cannot represent Judaism as if it is unified over this. As to RS issues, I am not sure that any of these sources have been declared not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards exclude due to the unreliability of sources here, although I do think it needs to be mentioned in the article that the front page was not unanimously supported among Britain's Jewish community, and that there are left-wing & anti-Zionist groups which disagreed with the editorial. Morning Star can be used as a source for this (so long as it is properly attributed), AFAIK. Unsure about Ekklesia, and the Canary is definitely non-rs and BLOGS violation. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • include - many of these sources are RS, and to exclude them would give the impression of a unanimity that does not actually exist, in violation of WP:NPOV.
Also, procedurally, I would say that the formulation of the RfC mat be inadvertently biased by including reliable along with non-reliable sources in the same section. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. We have 9 votes for including the first sentence and seven votes for excluding it, nine votes for excluding the second sentence and six votes for including it. I think therefore the fair and consensual compromise would be to reinsert the following sentence: The joint editorial was condemned by three Jewish groups, namely the Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Peace, with the Jewish Socialists Group describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria".[1][2][3] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Independent Jewish Voices say 'not in our name'". ekklesia.co.uk. 28 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
  2. ^ "Jewish socialists condemn 'concocted hysteria' by newspapers targeting Labour leader". Morning Star. 26 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
  3. ^ "Open letter from Jewish Voice for Peace". Morning Star. 5 August 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.5 JVL / Jenny Manson

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include the first or third diffs and consensus to include some of the second diff. This appears to have been done while this RfC remained open. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this, this, and this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Then lets see an end to the dismissing of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude #1 (talkRadio is no evidence of notability/reliability); modify #2 to include just the "BBC1" source ([28]) to say something along the lines of JVL praised Corbyn's "commitment to anti-racism" and were "appalled" by the Board of Deputies' letter, which the organisation said did "not represent us or the great majority of Jews in the party who share Jeremy Corbyn's vision for social justice and fairness" (seems unfair to exclude the response, and it is reliably sourced); exclude #3 (FRINGE, unreliable source). --Bangalamania (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include #2 only. Other perspectives from the broadcast can also be included if they are not redundant. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Needed for balance. Garageland66 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modify as a spokes(wo)man for JVL she can be seen as relevant but she is getting a lot of text in these diffs, probably too much on a large page. Additionally, I would add that her statement aboue ct the "majority of Jews in Labour" has no mathematical backing and can be seen as contradicted by the polls -- historically >50% of politically active Jews aligned or voted fairly consistently for Labour (the rest being Tories or Lib Dems), even if we take this down to ~40%, given ~85% finding the problem in the party to be pretty serious and being very disappointed in Corbyn, that only leaves 15% left and even if we assume they are all Labour (dubious, some could be aligned to very minor parties further left, and there are some economically right-wing anti-Zionists too) that means it is very unlikely to have a majority of Jews in Labour sharing her views. Although this is flagrant OR on my part I confess (permitted on talk pages), I do think the dubiousness of her majority statement merits its exclusion. The rest, just trim I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include - She's a spokesperson for a notable Labour Party Jewish group as well as being notable in her own right which provides balance. RevertBob (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude, Exclude, Exclude Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include #2 As per Bangalamania Weak Include Not sure regards #1 and #3 ~ She's a spokesperson for a notable Labour Party Jewish group as well as being notable in her own right which provides balance as per RevertBob. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include #2 As per Bangalamania Weak include #1, Exclude #3 - Clearly JVL are notable in relation to this topic, but we need to reflect their view via reliable sources which show notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include per RevertBob. G-13114 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude #1 and #3. Include reduced #2 per Bangalamania, though it could be then expanded per Newimpartial. For #1, including talkradio is embarrassing to WP, and cheapens other attempts at balance. For #3, besides other problems noted in above comments, it just makes a mess of the current paragraph. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it rather messy to do this by voting in multiple polls that don't really take the balance of the final version into account, though I suspect other sources can be found for #3. Seraphim System (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Include but shorten. The length of the quotes is disproportionate. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) .

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There seems to be a consensus reached. The first edit has 4 include votes and 6 exclude. The second has 8 include votes and 3 exclude (some of the include votes wanted a modified version, in most cases shorter). The third edit has 7 exclude votes and 3 include. I think it is therefore clear we should include some version of the second edit, but exclude the first and third. At the moment, the current version does not include the 1st edit, so that requires no action. It does include the 2nd edit, so that can be left, but with support for trimming it. It also includes the third edit, so we need to remove that. I will make that edit now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.6 Norman Finkelstein

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the first diff. There is no consensus to include the second diff. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this diff and this diff be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Exclude. Anti-Zionist activist, with academic credentials as a political scientist. Of the two diffs, diff1 has more merit (as it is secondary coverage) - however it is tangential (and rather self-obvious) to the coverage of Shah's sharing of Finkelstein's post (who stands behind this image, widely condemned elsewhere). Diff2 is an opinion piece posted on his website and subsequently also on the fringe Mondoweiss web-site - it has not been commented on in a secondary manner or published in a mainstream publication.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"Anti-Zionist activist" - in context I take this to mean Finkelstein is someone who has strongly criticised the state of Israel - and US Zionists. Why is that relevant to exclusion? Are we to exclude everyone who supports Israel - or the idea of Israel, as incapable of being impartial? Inadvertently, the comment defines the whole topic - those who see widespread anti-semitism in Labour, are almost always supporters/defenders of Israel, whereas those who are critical of Israel, indifferent to Israel, or who defend the right to criticise Israel - say that a-s doesn't exist to any significant degree! Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not present that as a reason - but as a descriptor. My rationale for exclusion is lack of secondary coverage in mainstream media (particularly for diff2). The descriptor may be relevant to as why main-stream media has ignored what he wrote on his personal website (in the same vein as his opinions on other semi-related matters). Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude, exclude. A quote from scholar, but of casual remark and not quote of scholars work. Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include per Slatersteven. G-13114 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude his opinion pieces; Include where his comments are reported in RSs. Finkelstein is used three times in the article at the moment. In the 2016/Inquiries section (paragraph "In May 2016...") he is quoted by the Independent so it is clearly notable, because the meme Shah shared came from him. However, in the Rebuttals/academics section (first para), he is quoted from an opinion piece in OpenDemocracy. As he is not an expert on antisemitism and still less on the Labour Party or UK politics, there's no reason to think his opinion there is notable. He appears again in the Rebuttals/Journalists and authors section, where he apparently "went public" in 2018 (whatever that means - his opinion was already clear from the 2016 opinion piece), this time citing an opinion piece in MondoWeiss. Again, no reason to think that's notable. We should keep the first, but delete the other two. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There is extremely strong consensus for including Finkelstein in the 2016 section in relation to the Naz Shah incident. However, there was no consensus achieved on the opinion pieces (the two quotations in different subsections of the Rebuttals section), with five votes each way. I think this means that we should renew the discussion on whether the one or both of the two quotations in the Rebuttals section should remain. These are as follows: Under "Academics" In the same month, Norman Finkelstein said: "The only plausible answer is, it's political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation; instead, a few suspect cases of antisemitism – some real, some contrived – are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it's transparently a smear campaign." and under "Journalists and authors" In the same month, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein went public calling the campaign attacking Corbyn and the Labour Party over the issue of antisemitism not only 'insane' and 'hysteria' but one led by powerful interests, with Chomsky arguing that the aim is to undermine Corbyn's attempt to create a political party responsive to the electorate, and Finkelstein asserting that, given the lack of evidence, the campaign was a calculated hoax. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.7 Rebuttals section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include a trimmed version. There is no consensus as to what that trimmed version should be. Editors should continue such a discussion. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the rebuttals sections as of 17 Sep 2018 (this diff, slightly differnet version) be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • include/trim/Modify Defending Responses needed for balance. However needs serious pruning & Merging where possible as per Calthinus. (also agree Rebuttals is a bad title) ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Trim: include most of these, but (a) remove open letters which have received no coverage in RSs; (b) remove non-notable opinions such as Socialist Struggle Movement; (c) ensure nothing repeats material in other sections (as per Icewhiz); and (d) shorten the quotes and lists of names. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC) I only just realised that Kuper and Saville in this section are cited via an opinion piece in openDemocracy, where interviews with them are quoted by the author. I think that's a bit of a borderline source; without secondary coverage it's hard to argue the quoted comments are notable. They should also be trimmed out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment This should be condensed. The strongest content should be kept to balance other content, but I don't think this can be done by polling everything at once. Ideally we would have a few authoritative examples from both sides of the debate without too much repetition. Only what readers need to understand the general contours of the debate and no more. That is more important then the particular quotes, which tend to become repetitive. We can use expert opinions, but only if they really add something new. Too often they are included only to make the point that these experts agree with the POV slant of the article and vigorous attempts are made to exclude experts who disagree. Keeping other encyclopedia articles in mind might be a good frame of reference, or reviewing some examples.Seraphim System (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Again I would rather we know what were are voting on, but this is more of a procedural vote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few:
  • a ummm... magician? Who is this guy, am I missing something?
  • Chomsky-- does not belong, his degree has nothing to do with the topic.
  • More professors/writers/etc whose careers have nothing to do with the topic -- they are just fluff. Ironically if you're trying to push a POV, it doesn't help you to make your section unreadable.
  • Non rebuttals -- i.e. Jenny Manson saying "the worst antisemitism is on the right" -- this is actually likely true but it is not a rebuttal and more Whataboutism. A major difference is that the right doesn't portray itself as the champion of the victims of bigotry to nearly the same degree, so the feelings of betrayal are not quite the same, and furthermore in the scenario where we accept that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, this arguably is more of a threat since it gives antisemitism a sort of "legitimacy" if the party devoted to fighting racism is tolerating it.
Another non-rebuttal : "there is antisemitism but its because of Israel" as per Lansman. This is not a "rebuttal". See also "Islamophobia is due to ISIS".
And this : "If it has gone unchallenged in the past, then that was an egregious mistake, and we will hold the party to its clear commitment to root out such ideas in the future" -- this is not a "rebuttal" it is a subjunctive apology and a pledge to do better.
And this : "...allegations that Labour is institutionally antisemitic, or that Corbyn himself is a racist, cut against, rather than with, the grain of what people already suspect to be true. Those who dislike Corbyn overwhelmingly think he's a politically correct peacenik, not a Jew-hater" --- not a "rebuttal" in the least.
And this : "so many others are, too, for anti-Semitism that's at least as dangerous. And yet the same leaders and institutions who are up in arms over Britain's Labor Party have failed, over and over, to express appropriate outrage" and "a case can be made that for many of these institutions, people like Corbyn and Farrakhan are manna from heaven, because they allow them to show the world how fiercely they fight anti-Semitism without actually having to do so in places where it's inconvenient." Also not a "rebuttal", its a basic error in propositional logic if you're asserting it is. If I tell you 1 plus 1 is 11 (or rather, fail to speak up when someone else says it is-- a bit more analogous) then I tell you 1 plus 2 is 3, it is a logical error to use my statement about 11 to judge the veracity of the sum of 1 and 2 being 3. Additionally, if I'm telling you 1+2=3 because my motive is to con you out of your house, that also doesn't change the fact that it's true -- my evil motives are not a "rebuttal" to my statement in this scenario.
Repetition tally:
  • "This is an attempt to smear Corbyn/Labour/the left": 12 [McCluskey, open letter to JC, various Jewish (far) left groups cited together, Ian Saville the "magician"..., Jewish Socialists' Group, JSG point reiterated again as "summary", another open letter, Finkelstein, Jewdas, yet another open letter with some shared authors, the irrelevant Socialist Solidarity Movement, Chomsky and Finkelstein again].
Might do tallies for other arguments later. It is not appropriate to say the same thing 12 times with different words and speakers. The section is huge. --Calthinus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
How many other "experts" do we have whose degrees are not relevant to the toptic?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven Haven't noticed it yet on the other side. Where they appear, I !vote exclude. When their careers are relevant, i.e. Lipstadt on one side, Finkelstein on the other, my vote has also been consistent.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a point on relevance: Chomsky has repeatedly been cited by reliable sources on questions of antisemitism and, while perhaps not articulating the mainstream analysis, his views cannot really be regarded as either FRINGE or irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Chomsky is well-spoken, persuasive, charismatic and widely admired (according to some, a "personality cult"). He gets cited for many things he lacks credentials in because of this. We have policy, and also a bloated page with issues of disproportion.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
We do have policy, and that policy does not require that people have "credentials" in order to be "recognized experts" in something. Chomsky's critique of the label "antisemitism" and related positions are certainly recognized and are widely published in reliable sources, and the commentary Chomsky offers is just as certainly not "disproportionately" represented in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Newimpartial Yes, the view offered by Chomsky is indeed offered by others throughout the article. Specifically, he is pointing out that often people get called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israel rather than Jews per se. How many times is this repeated? Let's count: in the "rebuttals" section alone aside from Chomsky saying it, we also have JVL/JVP/Jewdas/JSG/etc (I am counting these as 1), elaboration on this in a whole paragraph devoted to JSG again, Avi Shlaim [after a boring token list of pro-Corbyn Jews in Labour, cool anyone can compile lists], and then Sedley gets a whole paragraph for saying basically the exact same thing. So it is repeated five times, with 3+ paragraphs worth of text. Now, on the rest of the page, I really don't have the patience to count because it's so damn long (geez, wonder why), but surely you get the point? In contrast, the points raised by the other side (using the Holocaust as invective cheapens it, non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionism "incubating" anti-Semitism, tolerating anti-Semitism to please conservative Muslim voters, specific accusations of "coded anti-Semitism") ----- all seem to get about one repeat each. Meanwhile, Chomsky's point is not the only one repeated ad nauseam as among others we also have the "this is just a smear" argument repeated 12 times in one section alone. Come on, admit it-- this is disproportionate. Ironically it's not even helping anyone push any POV, Corbyn or not, when it just makes the page unreadable.--Calthinus (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

<Insert arrow here> Well, Calthinus, I agree that the page is unreadable, and there are sections (notably concerning the definition of anti-Semitism) that are repetitive. However, I disagree with the level of granularity that you are adopting when you suggest that the argument cited from Chomsky "is offered by" others and that it amounts to "people get called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israel rather than Jews per se". After reviewing the article, Chomsky is the only one I see making a rights-based argument, and doing so with specific reference to the case of Jackie Walker. I simply do not see this as a repetition of other arguments that note, for example, specific forms of criticism of Israel that claims of "anti-Semitism" have been used to pre-empt, or historical debates about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and the state of Israel. These are simply not all the same thing; to equate them as being all essentially "repetitive" of each other "ad nauseum" is to ignore the range of argumentation reliable sources offer on that "side" of the debate, while your comment shows no difficulty distinguishing distinct arguments on the other "side", distinctions that would disappear were you to adopt the same level of granularity for the criticism of labour as anti-Semitic. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah actually I have distinguished a number of arguments on that side, there is "it's a Tory smear" (repeated 12 times), there is "it is equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism", there is "it's worse on the right", and the development of that that the debate is framed in a way unfair to Labour (this is also repeated), there is "there is anti-Semitism but it's thanks to Israel", there is "we are working on it", I've distinguished all of these, and some of them are redundant, others belong elsewhere on the page as I indicated. You're not being fair. Of course another source of length is exhaustive listings of Jewish public figures who have taken X stance -- sometimes in the context of these open letters sometimes not -- and X stance very consistently tends to be a certain one...--Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
On Ian Saville: as with the "comedians" above, Saville's significance is as an activist in the Jewish Socialist Group rather than as a comedian. Not sure if that's enough to make him notable, but he is more so than implied by the term "magician". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay I can see your point here Bobfrombrockley. Perhaps we should consider all the celebs on both sides (the writers, the magician, the comedians, throw in Chomsky the celeb linguist/philosopher too perhaps) as a block and make one decision that applies to all of them.

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. There is a consensus to keep this section, with six votes against three. However, there are four votes for including it in a trimmed form. For now, then, we need to keep the whole section, but I think that it is sensible, probably outside of this RfC, to continue discussion on the specific contents of the section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.8 Sedley

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include this quote. It is possible consensus could be achieved for a more limited inclusion of this quote, however whether this is true or not is not clear from those who participated and would require a separate discussion. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Exclude - while the opinions of the former judge may be due for inclusion - they should not be repeated twice. Sedley already receives a whole paragraph on IHRA in the section (oddly - in the beginning of the section prior to any description of what this debate is about).Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include for noew, as he does seem to be talking about different things. Its not as if we do not quote other people more then once.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven: Twice is one thing (and could be OK if on different subjects) - but here it is twice in the same section on the same topic (IHRA's Working definition).Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that this is a confused and rambling section that include reference to the McPherson report (which is what one quote applies to) the other is a more general quote about what constitutes antisemitism. So yes, to my mind, they are about different topics, we just conflate them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree that this is a different subject, and for that reason I support inclusion. Certainly it could be modified and presented better in the article, and there is a lot of conflation going on here. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Both as per Slatersteven and RevertBob. Who is this Tom Frost, is he notable? if he is removed the would be less need for a strong rebuttal. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Radically trim Sedley is notable and has probably been referred to by others in this debate so should be included in the article. But he is currently mentioned three times and quoted at length. I think we have about 450 words of him in the article. There's absolutely no way that amount of weight is due. I would keep some mention of him in the IHRA section, where his legal expertise is relevant, but remove him from the "academics" section as he is not a scholar of antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. No consensus has been reached. There are five votes for inclusion, five for exclusion. Some of the inclusion votes argue for restructuring and trimming. It seems to me the sensible compromise would be to keep, but in a somewhat shortened and clearer form. I wonder if anyone could propose some compromise wording (bearing in mind Sedley has two separate paragraphs in the IHRA section, the second one particularly long, and one in the Rebuttals section)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.9 David Hirsh

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is, as with the above RfC, no consensus to include. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk)

Should we include material about how this did not affect the 2017 election[30]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

The material also mentions four highly Jewish constituencies where it did likely; imo with discussions of impact, RS sources disputing large impact are also relevant, the gauging of the impact is in and of itself of interest. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

RfC.10 Jeremy Newmark

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include his opinions. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we include his opinions [31]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

Totally agree with you that being Jewish and a member of the Labour Party is no criteria for inclusion, but it seems to me that as Chair of the JLM, the main society for Jewish interests within the Labour Party AFAIK, he would be seen as a notable figure for inclusion (and so I would lean towards include). --Bangalamania (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Except he is not a spokesman for a group, he is (literally) one person expressing his personal views).Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm setting this criterion based on the fact I also support the inclusion of the statements from the member of Jewdas. Sometimes non-official people end up acting as spokespeople. It happens. In this case, and in the case of the Jewdas representative, we have de-facto spokespeople if not de-jure. I would say they should be treated the same though. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The difference (as I see it) is she is (in effect) quoted as a kind of spokesperson for a specified group, he is not (other then being Jewish). I can see who she represents, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This has been open for 30 days. It looks to me like there is clear consensus for Newmark's inclusion. I think we can close this RfC, which requires no edit to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the justification that Newmark's views are considered relevant when Charlotte Nicholls who is also a spokesperson of a relevant group whose views have been included in a reliable secondary source is not. RevertBob (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence on Newmark (Neutral above) - however secondary coverage from the BBC on these particular remarks, and other coverage by multiple other news outlets for other antisemitism in Labour related remarks makes Newmark clear more DUE than Nicholls. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
My view is they should both be included, for similar reasons, although Newmark is obviously more noteworthy than Nicholls (Google News give 461 results for |"jeremy newmark" labour antisemitism|, suggesting he is widely considered noteworthy by news media, compared to 9 results for |"Charlotte Nichols" labour antisemitism|, suggesting her relevance is solely to the Sedar incident. If prominence in reliable sources is the index for due weight, Newmark is irrefutably more prominent. However, the key point here is that we went through an RfC and there was a very clear consensus for inclusion, so it seems to me we should just close rather than prolong the discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.11 Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama, and Simon Sebag Montefiore

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include their views. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is this [[32]] worthy of inclusion, why are thier voiews more notable then any othere celbs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

Discussion

This has been open for 30 days and it seems there is consensus to include. I think we can close this, which requires no edit to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.12 Gilad Erdan

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to exclude his views. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is this [[33]] worthy of inclusion, why are thier voiews more notable then any othere celbs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

Discussion

This RfC has been open for 30 days, and there seems to be clear consensus to remove. I think we can now close and edit Erdan out of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As nobody objected, I have now removed him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.13 Howard Jacobson

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include. This consensus appears independent from the result of the RFC question 11. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

We already have his views in the article once, do we need it twice? [34]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

I modified the link to [35] - as this is the second appearance in addition to the joint letter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include Notable person whose opinions are noted by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include: Previous mention of Jacobson is talking about a difficult issue; numerous people are quoted in the article more than once. Not a reason for exclusion. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. Previous mention on separate topic. Notable figure, opinion carried by the NYT and the Guardian. Some secondary coverage, including (more importantly) LASTING secondary coverage - e.g. Newstatesman in August 2018 - some two years later.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Although as a novelist he might not have the qualifications of some others, it is notable that a lot of his novels handle Jewish topics, making him an important voice for the British Jewish community.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - name-dropping quote of no significance effect or WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude: Jacobson is already being quoted; the 2nd instance is not needed. (The link did not work for me; I assume that this content is being referenced: British author Howard Jacobson called the internal inquiry "a brief and shoddy shuffling of superficies" that "spoke to very few of the people charging the party with anti-Semitism and understood even fewer of their arguments."[81] Jacobson also suggested that Corbyn nominating Chakrabarti for a peerage was shown contempt for those who had raised issues over antisemitism in the party.[82]). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

RfC.14 Polls of labour supporters

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that polls of the Labour party should be included as a general principle, but not what the specific form this should take. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Should polls that discus the views of labour supporters be included?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

  • Include As it is the labour party being accused it is relevant what their voters think, they after all will react to anything they do not like. If they do not see it as a problem nothing will get doneSlatersteven (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modify (somewhat include) - general population polls (and Jewish polls) are more relevant and covered than Labour specific support polls whose results are less relevant to the general election. In as much as there are polls about Labour leadership and/or Labour internal issues (e.g. ousting MPs of either camp (there have been decertifications of anti-Corbyn opposition inside Labour, for instance, lately) - that's probably more relevant for inner Labour.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude all opinion polls - I don't believe polls on either side can be seen as particularly encyclopedically relevant or due. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include -- they are informative, statistically sound, and of interest to the reader. Highly relevant.--Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It depends, of course. If a poll is asking whether the inclinaton of suporters to vote Labour has changed because of the anti-semitism row, it could be relevant. If it's asking whether Labour supporters are antisemitic or not, it would be tangential to the subject (i.e. anti-semitism in the Labour Party). Equally the article shouldn't be putting any great emphasis on what members of Facebook groups say or do. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude as per below; unlikely to offer anything of value for the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It all depends. Labour's been a major party for a century; can anyone come up with Labour voters' opinions from the 1930s, in particular? DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195103311.001.0001 has plenty of information on Jews' opinions of Labour, and it would be useful to include; if comparable studies of Labour partisans have been created, of course we should include them. But be careful to exclude recent polls unless they're covered by comparable reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This appears to be a weak consensus for inclusion, so can this RfC be closed? No edit to the page is required. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC.15 Polls of the Jewish community

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that polls of the Jewish community should be included as a general principle, but not what the specific form this should take. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Should polls that discus the views of the Jewish community be included?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Survey

  • Exclude As it is the labour party being accused and this tells us nothing about the veracity of the accusations. This is about antisemitism in the Labour party, not perceptions of antisemitism in the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Slaterseven, you have !voted to include the opinions of JVP, an erm, not so mainstream Jewish group. Although this probably wasn't explicitly your intention, your stance is essentially now "It's not about perceptions of antisemitism in the labour party among Jews, except this very specific subset of Jews whose views are not in line with the rest of the community". That's not really a principled stand.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The opinions (expressed) by Jewish members of the labour party are relevant as this is the views of labour part members (and thus is a reflection of how much they feel their party is antisemitic, and how threatened they fell by it). I fail however to see how this is the same as a poll of a group of random Jews which can tell us nothing about what the party thinks or does. That is the difference, one if about the people who have experience of the labour party the other is by people who may not even have ever spent any real time with a labour supporter.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven Whose opinion is more relevant is your opinion, which I suspect is based on your specific opinion on what Antisemitism is. Yours is not the only one. Another -- which is far more popular among Jews themselves -- is that Antisemitism is a systematic phenomenon concerning the (conspiratorial/"wealth") discourse surrounding Jews in society and a resulting set of beliefs that may also be held by well-meaning people, akin to similar discourses surrounding black people and crime, or Muslims and violence. Additionally, given where Jews live (hint, lefty cities), it's rather preposterous to presume they may not even have ever spent any real time with a labour supporter. Jews were historically a bastion of Labour, after all. Most were Labour supporters.--Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, I protest your characterization of the poll being of a group of random Jews. These are done by polling agencies, intended to be representative of the population and are statistically significant. If you think Survation is not RS you can take that to RSN. I already know what the result will be.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is not the whole point of such polls is that they are random, are are you suggesting they were selected.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Selected "randomly" but with demographic confounds controlled -- as most polls are. You make sure your sample has the demographic complexion (with respect to age, gender, wealth etc) that is representative of the population being studied. --Calthinus (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
So it was a random selection of Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. The opinions of the victims of antisemtism are clearly relevant - and widely covered - e.g. coverage of Jews fleeing the UK due to this issue.CNN Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude all opinion polls As I mentioned above, I don't believe any opinion polls are significant enough from a long-run encyclopedic perspective to warrant inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong include -- there are multiple grounds on which this is highly notable.
    • 1) As Icewhiz pointed out, it is rather bizarre to exclude the polling of those who actually experience antisemitism from a discussion about it. I'd like to add to this -- let's be real, if this was a scandal about Islamophobia in any party, there would never (I would bet my wiki career on this) be a widely supported initiative to remove polling of British Muslims -- so why on earth are Jews different?
    • 2) Impact -- Jews are a voting constituency and their alienation of the majority of them from a party that historically many, perhaps the majority, had supported has implications that are notable on multiple levels for British politics (i.e. the beneficiaries of this are likely Lib Dems more than Tories, and possibly also even SNP) and ethnocultural relations in Britain.
    • 3) No double standards -- on other such pages, "public opinion" polls including those of specific groups are usually included. Although "other crap exists" arguments are to be avoided, double standards will inevitably lead to a loss of good faith in the editing environment. Additionally on this page there is polling of Labour members supported by users who want to exclude polling of Jews -- increasing the risk for deterioration of editing environment.
    • 4) Informativeness -- these polls, conducted by WP:RS, are of interest to the reader, in gauging the impact on the British public, perceptions of it, and the overall context of the debate. They are statistically sound and concrete -- ironically unlike a lot of the he-said-she-said that permeates the rest of the page.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include as above, this is both important in itself and could have an impact on voting in constituencies with significant Jewish populations. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude all opinion polls as per Simonm223. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Relevant surveys deserve to be mentioned.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude/Weak Conditional Include These perceptions are less relevant than those covering those of Labour Party Members actually being accused of antisemitism, the Labour Party is on trial here, not the Jewish community. However if the surveys of Labour Party members/voters are included then maybe this could be included. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Our job is to report RS. Not to give the Labour Party or specific members some sort of fair and due process. We are not adjudicators here, just reporters.--Calthinus (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude in general; opinion polls are unlikely to offer much relevant material for the article. There could be perhaps exceptions, but they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather than an RfC about a hypothetical, "generic" opinion poll. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Perceptions of antisemitism in the Labour Party" is not only relevant, but central. How relevant groups perceive the issue is the clearest statement of its apparent significance. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. In a few minutes of searching, I discovered DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195103311.001.0001 and its chapter "The Political Conservatism of the Jews in Britain", which provides plenty of information on Jews' opinions of Labour and the reasons behind those opinions. But be careful to exclude recent polls unless they're covered by comparable reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it's very important that this be treated the same as the other opinion polls mentioned immediately above. I would prefer to see both sets of opinion polls deleted, but if we must retain either, per WP:NPOV we should retain both, as I don't think either is more fundamentally relevant or appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As with the other polls above, there seems to be a weak majority for inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC.16 Re English Irony

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to include. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the background to the statement (not opinions) in Electronic Intifada be inserted at the end of [in the 21st Century] or/and 2) Richard Millett's Comments in the Jewish Chronicle regarding who Corbyn was referring to

Suggested text

1) Corbyn’s remarks were made in reference to the earlier speech by Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority’s ambassador to the UK, and an incident after the speech in which Richard Millett a Zionist campaigner, confronted Hassassian over what he had just said.

2) Millett himself later wrote that Corbyn's remarks were aimed at himself and "the other Zionists with me"

Survey

I suggest we vote for 1) and 2) separately --Andromedean (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose all. Most mainstream media haven't addressed Millet's opinions at all. Electronic Intifada is not a RS. Version 2 is a gross misrepresentation of JC in which Millet says "I’m convinced Corbyn knew I was Jewish when he made his “English irony” comment. It’s still inexcusable if he didn’t know, as it could only apply to someone he doesn’t believe to be properly English. Had Corbyn been caught on film saying the same about a member of any other minority group he surely would have had to resign.". Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Millet' So basically even Millet himself admits it was not direct solely at him. As to Electronic Intifada, I am undecided as no one can point to the fact it has clearly been deemed not RS, but there is some indication we should use it with care.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all instances sourced to Electronic Intifada. It doesn't take much brains to realize this is exactly the sort of source we shouldn't use for this page.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both: There is already excessive detail on this page. The first point reiterates information already there. Millett is not noteworthy, and linking unnecessarily to a opinion piece criticising him might be a BLP issue. And Electronic Intifada is a borderline source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as per above. This page is too reliant on opinion pieces as it is. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment From one point of view, the controversy is about a conflict between those with opposing pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sympathies, mixed in with internal British left-right and left-left political struggles. Most conventional British news sources are not in sympathy with the Corbyn left and, as the Media Reform Coalition report purported to show, have failed to report on the controversy accurately or neutrally. It is hardly to be expected that the Israeli press (with the exception of some writers in Haaretz) or non-Israeli 'Jewish' publications such as The Tablet or the Jewish Chronicle, especially with the Israeli government pushing hard against the BDS movement, are going to be any better. Taking the case of the Jewish Chronicle, it publishes many excellent articles, however its editorial policy has a tendency to be fanatically or militantly pro-Israel and, as such, a major part of its output amounts to pure advocacy. The conventional news organisations tending to be out of sympathy with the Corbyn-left, alternative points of view tend to make their appearance among isolated commentators (the Finkelsteins, Chomskys and Shlaims, the mavericks (the Gideon Levys), occasional rends in the fabric (the Media Reform Coalition report and Lorna Finlayson in the LRB), the Arab press and non-conventional news sites with pro-Palestinian or pro-Momentum/Corbyn sympathies (the Squawkboxes and Electronic Intifadas). Wikipedia policy is that articles should neutrally report the contents of reliable sources. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking. Source reliability is a sliding scale with academic publications tending to occupy the heights and news sources tending towards the bottom. With the former it is usually safe to assume that the content has gone through review. With the latter, it often has to be taken on faith that they have checked their facts, but prejudices tend to colour what and how subjects are reported. In Wikipedia articles, non-conventional sources are often used if they are considered notable or important enough. In those cases, they are regarded as reliable for their own views and content is attributed. A major question here is how to report the 'antisemitism controversy' neutrally. Content from the Electronic Intifada has been attacked on the grounds that it is fringe, biased and not from a conventional reliable source. When it comes to reporting pro-Palestinian views, which are a central part of the subject matter here, the Electronic Intifada is actually an important source. Though not a conventional news source and its articles being published as the opinions of the writers, it is a reliable source for its own content. What exactly does 'fringe' mean. If it means that pro-Palestinian views are confined to a tiny (crazed) minority, I would suggest that is not the case (among other things it would imply that a rather significant part of that tiny minority must be editing ARBPIA articles on Wikipedia). If it means that the readership of the site is small, that begs the question of whether publications such as the Jewish Chronicle are not also 'fringe'. The Electronic Intifada is biased? Well so are most news sources, some of them spectacularly so. Accounts of what 'actually happened' at the meeting under discussion form an important part of the defence of Corbyn in this case. Although it might be desirable to use a more conventional source, if the Electronic Intifada carries the most detailed version, so long as it is attributed, it is permissible and probably for the best that it is used. Removal of all detail of what pro-Corbyn/pro-Palestinian sources say 'actually happened' at the meeting would severely compromise the neutrality of the article. To base the content entirely on strongly anti-Corbym/pro-Israel sources such as the Jewish Chronicle would severly compound the problem.     ←   ZScarpia   10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinion articles

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

If we start removing opinion articles properly attributed, nedless to say we should also remove Avi Shlaim based on a problematic source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is why I say this is not a properly formatted RFC, the article is littered with random opinions that really add nothing to our understanding of the actual incidents or attitudes of Corbyn or the Labour party. Frankly the only way to really do this is to gut the article of anything but actual incidents and then rebuilt from the bottom up.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A proper RfC, which (at the first set of questions) this is, asks specific questions on specific content (e.g. include/exlude or ver A vs. B). The problem we had with a previous set of quasi-RfCs on this page is that they asked general quesrions and the answers were generally "it depends" - which did not quote lead anywhere.Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I question how Open Democracy is any more questionable a source than any other opinion source we're using. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 Avi Shlaim is a source I'd be willing to fight to keep as per your compromise proposals. But I'm not satisfied with the rest thus far. I strongly dislike the sort of non-representative tokenization that has beset this article (i.e. look at this Jew who supports Labour still, and this one, oh wait he's just an irrelevant magician! And she is just a Jewdas "member") --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not at home to any tokenization. My concern is rather in the opposite direction, that some editors want to suggest that people speaking for one group of stakeholders in the Jewish community should not be included while people speaking for another should be. I want us to treat these conflicting groups equally and represent the diversity of perspectives in the British Jewish community with regard to this debate openly, and fairly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
See, I would actually be sympathetic to this, except that all sense of proportion is lost. Different Jews have different opinions (including between those on either side here) but what this page is doing is disproportionately listing a very large number of Jewish people who happen to support the view it reduces to nothing but a right-wing smear campaign (never mind what this would imply about clearly left-wing Jewish individuals who have publicly voiced concerns.). As per representative and statistically significant polls -- it is clear that these are no more than 15% of the Jewish community, yet they have probably the largest amount of space on the page. This is disproportionate. What is worse, a lot of these really have no merit to be here -- a magician? A totally unknown group far-left group in a foreign country? I mean, come on mate. Crying wolf about anti-semitism to blcok criticism of Israel is a real problem and (as can observed nowadays...) in the long run makes it difficult to criticize actual antisemitism where it occurs because the word got cheapened -- which is in turn why similarly crying wolf about crying wolf about antisemitism to block criticism of Labour is not only hypocritical but also counterproductive. --Calthinus (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In the case of Jewdas though, their stance on Israel and their past association with Corbyn makes their statements pretty significant. I mean if we have editors arguing that the opinion of a conservative American historian on Corbyn's puported (but never actually spoken) holocaust denial is significant, then having mention of that time he went to Seder and people started complaining about that too is pretty relevant. I agree with you that using accusations of antisemitism as a political cudgel is bad and cheapens it. It's part of what has me kind of frustrated with this cluster of pages is that so much of it appears to be just that.Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have not supported removing Jewdas' view elsewhere. I have supported removing a Jewdas "member" whose only notable aspect is being a youth group leader (i.e. low rank). Different people handle things differently. Some people like to compromise and be consistent, others (who have had to deal with users pushing the Khazar theory of Jewish ancestry on Jewish topics as per one widely rebuked study by Elhaik -- gee no wonder why the instinct of assuming good faith got eroded... yes these guys who edit IP more than me are probably more right wing than me, but they also have to deal with more outright bullshit on Jewish topics on a regular basis) see the other side digging in and instead dig in themselves, because if one side on wiki pushes and the other doesn't, the pusher wins. Right now I am doing the former. Anyhow, see you round.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Slatersteven seems correct. Any disconnected informal remarks from individuals, even if famous or important people, are unsuitable. It is only if an event is famous or important to the article topic that matters. Group letters noted in papers are suitable .... individual verbal remarks a paper chose to print that is not carried by others and does not directly move the narrative should all be excluded. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If the consensus is to keep opinion articles to a minimum, can I suggest that this addition, which does not seem to meet any of these requirements of notability? Note, the inclusion of this text is also being discussed on another article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#The_Finlayson_Article BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue that Finlayson is in a more expert position as a political scientist at a British university to hold an informed opinion than average. That said, I'd support the removal of all opinion articles, including this one, as long as we set some consistent, neutral, ground rules regarding what constitutes an opinion piece and we commit to keeping them all off the page. The issue we're in has largely been one of dueling opinions and while I'm not happy with that state of affairs I'd prefer it to an article which is a WP:COATRACK for stating unfounded accusations as if they were true just because they've been loudly repeated.
Note I feel similarly abut opinion polls. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a minor point: Finlayson is not a political scientist; she is a philosopher. She has no track record of writing about or researching contemporary British politics, the Labour Party, or antisemitism. See her university webpage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Professor of the philosophy of politics. I think her experience is perfectly apropos. That said, please see above; I don't want any opinion pieces in this article. I just want the article to be a hit-piece on Corbyn less.Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
To be specific, her few authored works are on liberal political philosophy and feminism - not quite part of the issue here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that somebody who studies "liberal political philosophy" in the UK would probably spend a fair bit of time studying the shifts in political direction of the Labour party so I'd disagree with your characterization. But this is beside the point; my concern is that opinion articles are removed in a balanced manner. I want to see opinions removed from this article. I just don't want that desire to be used as an opportunity to trample WP:NPOV in an attempt to smear Corbyn for imaginary crimes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This may seem pedantic but did you look at her webpage? She's not a professor; she's a lecturer (they have specific meanings in UK universities). She is a Lecturer in a School of Philosophy and Art History. "She has interests in political philosophy and its methodology, critical theory and theories of ideology, feminist philosophy, philosophy of social science, and Arabic philosophy." She has not written academically about the UK; she has not as an academic studied the shift in the political direction of the Labour Party. Her views are of course valid and she's obviously smart, but her views are no more authoritative than those of any other smart leftist, and are not notable in any sense. I agree we should get rid of opinion pieces, but if we're going to start somewhere she seems a really good place as her inclusion seems completely arbitrary. I'm looking through the article now to see what other opinion pieces there are: in the 2016 section Howard Jacobson in the NYT and Jon Lansman in the Morning Star (arguably both notable and probably covered by secondary sources); in the 2017 section Jenny Manson on Talk Radio; in the 2018 section Simon Jenkins and Tom Peck in the Indy, Jeremy Gilbert in openDemocracy, Charlotte Nichols in LabourList, Jennie Fornby in Jewish News, Lansman in the Guardian, Sedley (a bunch of different opinion pieces with many words devoted to them), Lerman (openDemocracy) and Klug (openDemocracy - very long quotations), and Finkelstein (in the blog MondoWeiss); in the Rebuttals section Ian Saville in the LabourList blog (as well as, along with Kuper, quoted from a Ben White opinion piece in openDemocracy, Stern-Warner in openDemocracy, Avi Shlaim in openDemocracy, Finlay in Jewish News, Pappe in Middle East Eye, the Socialist Struggle Movement, Klug and Lerman in openDemocracy again (at some length), Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz, Finkelstein in MondoWeiss again, Lev Golinkin in the Forward, Richard Seymour on his Patreon blog, Finlayson. Some of these are the subject of their own sections in the RfC above, but I think all of the others can just be deleted. Hard to say that the presence of opinion pieces contributes to "trampling" or "smearing" Corbyn, given that all of those apart from Jacobson are defences of him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with Bobfrombrockley here. The fact is that this page has a lot of opinion articles. The mathematical fact is also that the vast majority are defensive. This cannot be disputed. Thank you Bob for taking the work to count them all up. I tried earlier to demonstrate how many points get repeated by this phenomenon of dumping any and all defensive pieces written by Jews (yes, we have to WP:SPADE -- this is the incredibly obvious pattern of tokenization) on the page. Whether this is a POV push or people earnestly trying to protect NPOV when they thought the page was previously disbalanced against Corbyn, I assume the latter, honestly. But understandable motivations does not change the fact that this is a violation of policy. I understand and totally sympathize with the BLP concerns here and my goal is not to portray Corbyn as a Nazi or even an anti-Semite (as I have said -- my personal view is not that he is, personally, and I think his intentions are good too, though I do think he doesn't take the problem seriously enough-- for full disclosure and transparency -- I am not trying to push this view either, I am trying to maintain encyclopedic quality). But these considerations must also be applied to individuals like Luciana Berger, who are defamed when people (yes, including fellow Jews) like Gideon Levy call them part of an international smear campaign, or accuse them of serving the interests of either the Tories or Israel, even when these are Jews who are critical of both and have devoted their political careers to Labour. So let's have a bit of symmetrical consideration of BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We should not include random opinions of feminists and Jews (who support Labour). Opeds can be used, in my mind, if they meet one of three criteria: 1. Key political (e.g. Corbyn) or community (e.g, Sacks, or the joint Jewish newspaper frontpage editorial) figure. Or 2. Highly notable experts (e.g. Lipstadt). Or (most importantly and 1 and 2 would typically have this) 3. Secondary analysis of the oped itself or of the person's positions/expert views prior to the oped (e.g. if a persin's prior remarks were widely covered, a subsequent oped refining/updating those remarks would be DUE). Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I share User:Bodney's previous concerns, especially about editors wanting to include as much criticism as possible available but remove all rebuttals, which ultimately leads to being a one-sided, coatrack, attack page that it was a few months ago. Differing views within the topic of alleged antisemitism in Labour including the views of Labour officials, spokespeople of relevant Jewish organisations (spokespeople for Community Security Trust are rightly mentioned multiple times in the article), Jewish organisations, scholars, jurists, academics etc from a wide range of relevant reliable sources that provides useful content, gives the page the balance it has previously lacked and addresses the POV concerns raised.

Also, interesting that BobFromBrockley wants to remove an article Lorna Finlayson (professor of the philosophy of politics) which sourced from RS but is fighting tooth and nail to keep content sourced from a blog by Daniel Allington (a media professor) arguing SPS Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 4#Allington_blog [36]. RevertBob (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this. Allington is a sociologist and he has publications specifically on the antisemitism controversy. What you are doing here is obfuscating the incredibly obvious tokenization, dragging out of unnecessarily long text repeating the same points and pretty much all of this being on one side (the irony: Allington was being used in a relatively pro-Corbyn way, i.e. disputing the Conservative narrative). --Calthinus (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
RevertBob, it's not helpful to make a personalised attack on me here. I am not "fighting tooth and nail" to include Allington. I pointed out that the WP rules on SPS on their own do not necessarily preclude his blogpost, as he is an academic who has researched this exact area and published peer reviewed articles on it. What I would like us to do is use Wikipedia policies to determine the inclusion of text about opinion pieces, rather than our ideological convictions. If the article was previously overloaded with criticism to the point of being an attack piece, it is now skewed heavily towards rebuttal through the excessive inclusion of and quotation at length from opinion pieces of varying notability. I've counted at least 28 opinion pieces with no secondary coverage quoted in the article, of which all but 1 are defending Corbyn. More pedantically, as I keep saying, Finalyson is not a professor (and nor is Allington); the meanings of that term is different in a British context than in a US context. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we've been through this many times and it's been discussed at length then archived and then bought up again like a referendum against CONLIMIT. The irony is misplaced because I'm not here with a pro or anti stance but would like to improve the article with all relevant views being present. You can see here where I've added "anti-Labour content". I'm not sure how removing all opinion piece content sourced from RS helps improve the article. Sorry Bob for taking out my frustrations on you, problem is that there are too many editors here motivated to POV-push rather than improve the article, which has been seen by the how they argue every time something is discussed but when this is called out you get accused of NPA or AGF. Article is called antisemitism in the Labour Party not antisemitism of Jeremy Corbyn by the way. If the article is unbalanced then the answer should be to add content to provide balance rather than removing content, I'm sure there's plenty out there with JLM, BOD, JLC etc. RevertBob (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed the article is not about blackmailing Corbyn and no one is trying to make it such. Some other people might do well to remember this article is also not "How Luciana Berger and (list of Corbyn-critics) are part of a vast anti-Labour conspiracy" (see also: WP:BLP).--Calthinus (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology RevertBob. Appreciated. I also should note I undercounted above in saying there are around 28 opinion pieces with only one of them negative; I did not look at the incidents in the 21st century section, which includes Baroness Deech, Manfred Gerstenfeld, Lispstadt (quite briefly) and John McTernan (very briefly), and since I wrote this RevertBob has added another, John Newsinger in the Socialist Workers Party journal. So the count is something like 33 opinion pieces, of which 5 are critical. This is both too many in total, and highly skewed. Seems to me we have three possible ways forward: (a) rebalancing again by adding content as proposed by RevertBob, which would presumably mean adding in (or back in) opinion pieces and open letters that highlight antisemitism in the Labour Party, presumably with the same extensive quotations that characterise the defensive opinion pieces; or (b) radical trimming of opinion pieces, both by making each mention more concise and encyclopedic (the sentence on Lipstadt might be a good model) and by reducing the total number starting with the least notable, possibly using the discussion in the RfC above to provide guidance (e.g. there seems to be consensus for including Jacobson and excluding Gilad Erdan, although no real consensus on anyone else); or (c) simply removing all opinion pieces (I think Simonm223 might have suggested that?). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy with a radical trimming of opinion pieces. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not really sure why this discussion has appeared to supersede the RfCs above so quickly, were the multiple RfCs abandoned? Should we not finish that process first? Then move onto logical and sensible trimming that conveys arguments more succinctly. On the other hand I do think The Gnome flyby edit helped improve the article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

In this discussion, I think there was a strong consensus that excess opinion pieces be removed. The RfCs above seem to have stalled with no consensus. Of the 33+ opinion pieces cited, some are covered by other RfCs above and some have secondary coverage, so I won't raise them. The remaining ones, I think, are as follows, and I propose we should delete them all. 2016 section: Baroness Deech, Manfred Gerstenfeld, John McTernan; 2018 section: Simon Jenkins and Tom Peck in the Indy, Jeremy Gilbert in openDemocracy; Rebuttals section: Newsinger in the Socialist Workers Party journal, Stern-Warner in openDemocracy, Pappe in Middle East Eye, the Socialist Struggle Movement, Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz, Lev Golinkin in the Forward, Richard Seymour on his Patreon blog, Finlayson in LRB. In addition, we should keep but trim Lerman (openDemocracy) and Klug (openDemocracy), who are authoritative and noteworthy but who have excessively long quotations in both the 2018 section and the rebuttals section, without secondary sources justifying them. I know that most (although not all) of these are Corbyn-defensive, but that's because the vast weight of opinion pieces in this article are Corbyn-defensive, which makes it unbalanced. However, my main concern is not the balance one, but simply making the article more encyclopedic by reducing all of the opinion material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Broadly agree here - the idea is to take a neutral approach to inform opinion rather than reproducing it. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This would be a good start and if balancing content needs to be added it would make more sense to continuing discussing it after we've trimmed some of the excess. Seraphim System (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_British_Labour_Party/Archive_7&oldid=1211325661"