Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 6

Vote

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

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

That is virtually what policy says in reverse, that we should not include because we can revisit in 6 months (when, if this is still a thing, we can include some actual information about who said what and what they were charged with).Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Maybe we should let uninvolved eds vote, out opinion are already known.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the issue has now progressed to a vote, perhaps you should take part? Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No it has progressed to an RFC, you do not need an RFC to have a vote. As I said I would rather we waited for new blood before re-iterating out opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that, although I am obviously a yes supporter, I agree with Slatersteven here. Regular editors of this page have generally reached fixed positions which will shape how they vote here. We need un-involved editors to have a say, as the main issue at stake here is how we apply policy, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, and I would like to see uninvolved editors' views on that. I should add that almost none of the RfCs above seem to have reached consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between 'reaching consensus' and having a unanimous voting result. There are a number of RFCs that have votes that far outweigh the other side. Alssa1 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bodney: You assert that "4 to 3" isn't consensus, can you tell me what number is consensus? What is the justification for removing the edit when the majority of people (expressed thus far) are in favour of the inclusion of the edit? Alssa1 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that some of those opposed to the edit had not voted (expressly to give new eds a chance).Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Delighted to see so many editors vote 'No'. Presumably on the same basis we should remove almost all of the article. which relates to individuals who have been suspended pending an investigation, but deny antisemitism. I'm all for that. But on the basis of simply noting that an investigation has been launched by the police, people will draw their own conclusions about innocence or guilt, per every other incident so far. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should, lets start by a EDM which as absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism also being on this page. RevertBob (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording proposed seemed likely to suggest conclusions -----Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any one is saying "innocent until proven guilty" they are saying "we do not even know what the charges are". What we have is an internal investigation, which oddly no one actually seems to have published, no names, no dates, Not anything that might actually be libelous. It is not even clear that this is actionable (after all what the sources say id the police have handed this to the CPS to determine if anything prosecutable may have occurred).Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To put this in context, here we have a statement from the Metropolitan Commissioner of police reported on the 2nd November by the BBC "She made it clear the Labour Party itself was not under investigation. We would always want institutions and political parties and similar to be able to regulate themselves. However, if somebody passes us material which they say amounts to a crime we have a duty to look at that and not just dismiss it." This may or may not amount to anything. The report also makes it clear that the material came from internal Labour Party investigations. The debate here is not about if it should be mentioned (it should) but the wording used. Some of the include votes seem to be unaware of this. In this respect the RfC is badly phrased - it should really be about a change to the way the material is referenced (the actual link provided). The proposed wording is not neutral in so far as it does not fully report the context. I also think it doesn't deserve a full section but just a brief note at most. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you suggest we phrase the material? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: In what way is the proposed wording "not neutral"? Alssa1 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make it clear that the Party itself is not being investigated and ignores the fact the police are obliged to investigate any such allegation - it will become a news item if they take it further. The most I think we can justify is a simple sentence that says In September 2018 LBC Radio obtained social media posts from an internal Labour Party document, and passed it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. The Commissioner confirmed that they would look into the matter, but the Labour party itself was not under investigation. It does not justify a section or any implication beyond that -----Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded:That terminology would suggest that no member of the Labour party was being investigated, when in fact all of the reliable sources (The Washington PostBBCThe GuardianThe Independent) say that the criminal investigations are against Labour members and activists. I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself" refers to whether the leadership is being investigated. Alssa1 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All we know are is that an internal labour party document identified social media comments - we don't know from who, how prevalent, if they were major figures or minor one. We need to wait a see and for the moment and see what happens - oh and you should not confuse the identity of a Party with that of its Leadership. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I note the same sources say that the police have said the Labour party is not being investigated. This is exactly why this needs to be left out until we know what (and who) is being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this article is about antisemitism in Labour and not antisemitism of Labour, the investigation of the party itself or lack thereof is immaterial. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but I was responding to someone who said the party was being investigated. It is not (however) irrelevant that we do not know who is being investigated (or even if the CPS will support an investigation), precisely because the kind of mistake about "this is an investigation of the Labour party) is going to happen given how little we actually know about this. If eds making argument for inclusion are making this mistake then we need to ensure that whatever we write is not informed by the same beliefs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which person said that? My point is that the suggested terminology doesn't actually explain what it means by "the Labour party not being investigated". The sources say that Labour party members and activists are being investigated rather than the operational nucleus of the party. Alssa1 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

My error I assumed that " I would suggest that the terminology "the Labour party itself"" meant you felt the labour party (and thus the leadership) was being investigated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not following your reasoning, who has suggested that if we include this we cannot say that labour party members may be being investigated? I think all that was said is that the suggested edit does not make it clear the labour party itself is not under investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone has suggested that. What I was trying to say earlier is that we should provide a bit of clarification so as to avoid any confusion. By all means we should say "the Labour party itself is not being investigated", but should we say that we must also make clear that that does not mean that individual Labour members and activists are not under investigation. Alssa1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well as we do not know who (or even what) is being investigated (or even what the scope of the investigation is) I doubt we can. We could at best say that comments alleged to have been made by Labour members and activists are being investigated. I am not sure that is very encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We know (because that is what all the reliable sources say) that there is a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members and activists. We know the former senior police officer Mark Chishty reviewed these allegations, and he said 17 instances should have been reported to the police for investigation, and another four were potential race hate crimes. We know that the things said included things like: "“We shall rid the Jews who are cancer on us all…” Another allegation talks about how a serving Labour councillor is accused of carrying out a “10 years of hell” campaign of intimidation and harassment against a child, including calling him “Jew boy”. The fact of the matter is, we know the nature of the allegations, the categories of individuals in question (and their relationship to the Labour party). I'm not sure why you think we don't know these things. Alssa1 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not know who said what. We do not know which of these allegations are being in investigated. We do not know if any of these investigations can even be linked to know individuals.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, how is that relevant to whether it should be included in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Because we do not have enough to make this an encyclopedic entry that tells the reader anything usefully. We (literally) cannot say who said what, if it is old or new (we may already cover many (if not all) of these incidents), we cannot say they were labour party members (as the police have not said this, and no proof has been offered), we cannot say they were antisemitic (as no prosecutions have yet occurred), or even of the ones that are were said by labour members (as opposed to sites visited by them). All we could say is "allegations have been passed to the CPS to determine if any criminal activity was involved and could be prosecuted", that is not encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources say "it was reported the leaked dossier included a total of 45 cases of alleged antisemitism by Labour members." (Sky) "Police probe into anti-Semitism claims against Labour members" (BBC). Just because we do not have further information than that does not mean the current information isn't useful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Every single reliable source we have says that they are Labour members, I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that "we cannot say they were labour party members". Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police.", So they say these are "alleged antisemitism by Labour members". The fact they do not say alleged Labour members would be because it would be redundant, as they make it clear these are all just allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ohh lets add "It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.", so lets stop saying that all the RS are saying this was a Labour document.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I think what I said it we cannot imply it is proven they are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we can imply that those under investigation are guilty of the allegations against them. However if you're saying that we can't say that those under investigation are Labour members and activists, then I can only say that the RS state that they are Labour members and therefore we are entitled to point that out. Alssa1 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that the alleged antisemitism refers to Labour members? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that RS are saying that this is LBC saying they are. So we have to also point that out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So even though the RS say explicitly that Labour members are being investigated, you think they are just going on the word of LBC? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That's your interpretation. We have to go by what the RS say, and they do not say they're just going on the word of LBC. Alssa1 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media. So yes an RS is saying this is LBC's claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So you don't think that the RS would have checked with the police themselves whether Labour members were under investigation before writing that "Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.", "Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into allegations of antisemitic hate crimes linked to Labour party members, according to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police." etc? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are news sources reporting a statement - and the statement says internal documents/hate crimes it doesn't say yet who is being investigated just what. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

And some also make it clear the claims are only those of LBC, this is why we need to word this carefully. You will note the police do not actually say (in quotes of the police) who is being investigated, not even if they are labour members. Hell one your quotes only says "linked to" not "by" (for example, and the only one that actually says this is what the police said). So no it is not at all clear what the police are actually investigating, what we have is some media speculation. Now if you want to actually present some suggested text we can discuss adding it (after all at least one user has objecte based upon the text, me I doubt it will win me over but you never know).Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It has now been nearly a month, any more information?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the lack of information a month out indicates that (like a lot of things that are rushed onto this page) this was a tempest in a teapot and nothing came of it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Or it might mean the investigation is ongoing. It's not our job to make inferences either way, but to accept what reliable sources say. If we make a brief careful mention of it now, nothing stops us editing later in light of any conclusions reported. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Or (as policy says) we can wait until what is going on is clearer, and nay long term effects are noted. Nothing stops us leaving this out, and coming back to it latter, when we can write a far more informative piece.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

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

Yes, Highly notable, widely covered, directly ties to antisemitism and denial by senior Labour leadership.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• No – This section is NOTNEWS based on a Politics Home blogger who trawled through Hansard to see what dirt they could find to paint Corbyn as an antisemite and this is the best they could find. We have a January 2011 motion and then we jump to a Tweet over 7 years later by Karen Pollock referring to it as "denial and distortion".

There's no sources of this for when it happened whilst Ed Milliband (Labour's only Jewish leader) was leader, and considering Parliamentary EDM are public, nor is there any evidence of any antisemitism being present other the tweet by Karen Pollock referring it as "denial and distortion" in reaction to seeing something which has been in public domain without any previous objection not least from Labour MPs like Hodge, Berger, Woodcock, Mann etc.

The full motion declared: "This House welcomes the Never Again For Anyone Initiative by survivors and descendents [sic] of survivors of genocides, which declares that every life is of value; notes that disabled people were the first victims of Nazi mass murder, that working class activists and trade unionists, many of whom were Jewish, were the first to be sent to concentration camps, and that Nazism targeted not only Jewish but also Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, lesbian, gay and bisexual people and others they deemed undesirables." I can't see what's antisemitic about this?

It sounds like a long line of calculated smear campaigns by the press against Corbyn. I think it's a BLP breach to make such a serious accusation based on such a weak journalistic claim. There's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion isn't about the content being notable per se but if it should be given DUE WEIGHT for inclusion within the article's topic. RevertBob (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, briefly explained and with multiple citations so people may read further, should they so wish Aboudaqn (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So do you think as written it fits this criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• No per RevertBob, ZScarpia, TFD and others, this was not in fact widely covered at the time and has been picked up by a biased media.

Zero evidence of anti-Semitic intention, but a wish to remember all who have been subjected to and suffered the extremely inhuman hate crime of genocide. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

But it is our job to prove if it's relevant to the topic. If it was a mainstream view then it'd have been covered in more RS and we'd have a bit more than just one vague tweet. RevertBob (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments

Why has this RFC been opened, I was not aware there was currently a dispute over this that needed an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here. Please note the discussion is about what evidence is there that the EDM is antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article. RevertBob (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That has not been active in over two weeks, and no challenge has been made to the current material in (about that time?)). So again I fail to see why we need an RFC on what looks to be a resolved issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are we re-litigating this three weeks later? I also thought we reached agreement on this, that it was worth inclusion but should go in the 2018 section as that is when it was controversial. If we didn't, shouldn't the RfC be placed within that section on the talk page, so people can read the discussion before voting? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The text which was inserted in the article was cited to articles in two Israeli newspapers and an "essay" in a pro-Israel, rightward-leaning British newspaper by Henry Zeffman, who, judging by this article and this, is distinctly unsympathetic with Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian section of the Labour Party. Those are reasonable sources for the reaction of pro-Israelis or anti-Corbynites, but, as far as the Early Day Motion itself is concerned, the meat of that is Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK’s Holocaust Educational Trust, saying "any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion" (one of the sources claims that Pollock directly accused Corbyn of "denial and distortion" though that doesn't come out in the fuller quote given in Haaretz), which, to justify inclusion in the current article, we have to accept as the equivalent of antisemitism, though that isn't stated explicity in the articles. In terms of neutrality, a policy requirement, depending on sources with a uni-directional bias isn't good. It's dubious that they fairly represent the Labour Party's response and it's noticeable that the Early Day Motion itself isn't described accurately or in detail. The Motion doesn't actually, as stated, call on the government, nor anyone else, to do or acknowledge anything specific. No mention is made of the Never Again For Anyone Initiative, which has a central place in the motion, nor of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network who are behind it (IJAN were also behind a letter to the NYT signed by 300 people which criticised an advert posted by Elie Wiesel).     ←   ZScarpia   22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with ZScarpia that Zeffman's essay is a bad source, as it is an opinion piece. (There are other sources if two aren't enough, which I listed here.) I disagree that one sentence is excessive amount of weight for Pollock. I disagree too about needing to simply "accept" that denial is the equivalent of antisemitism, as Pollock's quote explicitly mentions antisemitism: "But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity [i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity] is a form of denial and distortion." Her full statement is here, by the way, and adds that it causes "offence" to "the Jewish community", and locates it as part of a pattern of "persistent offending", which shows why it is relevant to our article. The motion is only described briefly in the inserted text, and to repeat the whole motion (as the cited Ha'aretz source does) would be adding even more weight in word to the incident, but the inserted text (following the sources) does accurately describe the actual call for action at the end of the motion, which was precisely the contentious element. If it needs to mention IJAN for context, that could easily be added, although the only source I can see which we could cite, apart from the primary source of the motion, would be this one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(In the following, for 'Park' read 'Pollock' and for 'IJAF' read 'IJAN'. Thanks to BobFromBrockley for pointing out the errors.) I must be being blind. Could you point out to me where Park [correction: Pollock] calls the content of the early day motion antisemitic. I'd be interested to know whether you think that using solely pro-Zionist sources to cover what anti-Zionists do or say is likely to result in a neutral article. This Mirror article refers to the Never Again For Anyone initiative mentioned in the early day motion as "an apparent reference to a campaign promoted by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)" and then goes on to describe what the IJAN says about it: "the initiative is intended to challenge the 'Zionist expoitation' of the Holocaust for 'political purposes' ...". The IJAF [IJAN] site is a reliable source for what the IJAF [IJAN] says about the initiative. The Electronic Intifada is a reliable source for what the Electronic Intifada says about the initiative, that it is "coordinated in part by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)".     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Park? Do you mean Karen Pollock? She does not explicitly say the EDM was antisemitic. She says it denies the antisemitic specificity of the Holocaust, and that makes it clearly relevant to the topic of this article. I am not sure it is appropriate to be calling Ha'aretz a "pro-Zionist source". If you think it is not a reliable source, I think you'd need to take that to the RSN, as it is used heavily as a source by several WP articles. Other reliable sources are available too, e.g. the Mirror article, so we can add that. I don't understand the reference to IJAF (you mean IJAN?) being an RS or what the EI article from 2011 adds: it doesn't mention the Labour Party or the 2013 EDM. Are you saying we can't mention this incident without a few sentences about IJAN? Wouldn't that give it undue weight and make it a bit off-topic? But if IJAN can be fitted concisely into the text without too many words, e.g. using the Mirror article, I wouldn't see a problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

As far Pollock's commentary goes, I'd better start by repeating that, subject to provisos, I have no objection to the article referring to it goes. Having said that, I disagree with the argument you've given for doing so. There's a bit of a mismatch between the title of the article and its introduction, but going on what the latter says, the article appears to be about the current controvery in which allegations of antisemitism have been made against members of the Labour Party. In order to justify the inclusion, in two references to Pollock's statement, you have had to interpret in a dubiously valid way, inserting the explanatory text "i.e. the anti-Jewish specificity" in one case and, in the other, casting Pollock's use of the word "specificity" as "antisemitic specificty". Pollock's commentary is problematic as it's ambiguity makes it difficult to determine exactly what her argument is.

Pollock's tweet reads: "Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides. But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion." What exactly does Pollock mean by, "the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core?" And, "any atempt to remove that specificity?" Holocaust with a capital "H" is used in two different ways, one referring specifically to the Jewish Holocaust (Shoah), the other referring to all victims of the exterminatory policies of the Nazis . International Holocaust Remebrance Day commemorates the latter. Holocaust Memorial Day, the UK implementation of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in something of a fudge, commerates the Nazi's extermination victims as well as victims of later genocides (though not earlier ones including at least two in the 20th century). In the sense used by the Remembrance and Memorial Days, contrary to Pollock, the Holocaust was a set of crimes, rather than a specific one, those directed at non-Jewish victims having nothing to do with antisemitism, let alone having it at their core. Pollock is excercised by the name change. It's likely that she's exercised because of the motivations she perceives behind the push for the change. Presumably she perceives those as being anti-Jewish in some way relating to how she defines the Holocaust? That being the case though, is she not trying to have it both ways, protesting about how the UK Memorial Day already commemorates other non-Jewish Holocaust and non-Holocaust genocide victims?

Reliability operates on a sliding scale with academic sources near the top and news sources tending towards the bottom. Reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact checking. For academic journals that usually takes the form of peer review. Most newspapers may have lawyers, to avoid litigation, check particular articles and editors ensure that style guidelines are adhered to, but to what extent and how effectively they check facts is really anyone's guess. On Wikipedia, news sources really do have to have a poor reputation for bias or low quality in order to be disqualified as unreliable. News source may be accepted as reliable in general terms on Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are infallible. The Media Reform Coalition published a report on disinformation and inaccuracies in reporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party. Most newspapers will have biases of some sort, including political and national ones, which is why, of course their reporting is contradictory and varies widely. This LSE report describes bias in reporting on Jeremy Corbyn. In general terms, Haaretz is a paper of the Zionist left, which means that it's reporting tends to attack the Zionist right. Attacking the Zionist right does not make it anti-Zionist though. It also does not mean that it does not carry articles which do not follow its general editorial line. Some of its maverick contributors include Amira Hass (pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist) and Gideon Levy (post-Zionist is my guess - perhaps this piece could be cited in the current article: "The Jewish establishment in Britain and Israeli propaganda have taken out a contract on him, to foil his election: He’s an anti-Semite, Labor is anti-Semitic, Jewish life in Britain is in 'existential danger,' no less, as three British Jewish newspapers cried out in a joint editorial.") However, the Haaretz article under consideration follows the pattern which would be expected in pro-Zionist sources. Although not as militantly pro-Zionist as pro-Zionist sources come, I described Haaretz as such to contrast it with how anti-Zionist (or post-Zionist) sources would report on Corbyn and the Labour Party. See for instance (I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like): Jewish Voices for Labour ; Strategic Culture Foundation ; +972 ; Gush-Shalom ; Al Jazeera ; Media Lens ; Mondoweiss ; Electronic Intifada ; Middle East Monitor ; American Herald Tribune ; RT ; Information Clearing House ; International Socialism ; OpenDemocracyUK . Finally, there is the Finlayson article in the London Review of Books, which is an example of writing which is not pro-Zionist, but not necessarily anti-Zionist.

By "the IJAN site is a reliable source for what the IJAN says about the initiative", what I meant was that, so long as any statement is accompanied by a qualifier such as "according to the IJAN", the IJAN site would act as a reliable source for anything cited to it. A circumstance where you might want to do that is when that site contains the best explanation of what the Never Again For Anyone initiative is about. I included the Electronic Intifada quotation because, contrary to the Mirror article, it says that the initiative is only "co-ordinated in part" by the IJAN.

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

Pardon me if that is garbled. I'm too tired to check it thoroughly.     ←   ZScarpia   02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

ZScarpia- I get your point about Pollock's ambiguous comment; she is not explicitly saying the EDM is antisemitic. All I'm trying to argue is that her mention of antisemitism, given that her comments are very widely reported in reliable sources, shows why the issue is relevant for this article. We don't need to disentangle what she means or agree with her. Second, I don't see how the sources ail to give an accurate or neutral description of the EDM, especially if we add the Mirror one which mentions IJAN: the Ha'aretz source actually links to and quotes the entire text of the EDM; what more could they do? Third, on whether the sources are reliable. You seem to be blurring point of view with reliability and lumping news and comment together Wikipedia has policy on what constitutes a reliable source and consensus on which sources are reliable. I am fairly certain Ha'aretz is considered reliable. I'm not sure what the purpose is of your list of sources, as they don't seem to mention the EDM at all, but they are a very mixed bag, including a mix of news items and opinion pieces. JVL is a reliable source for JVL's opinion, but not for claims of fact. Strategic Culture Foundation seems like a marginal Kremlin-backed conspiracy site and opinion aggregator and everything you list from there is an opinion piece not a news article (reblogged from elsewhere - specifically from another pro-Russian conspiracy site TruePublica and from a Wordpress blog). The Gush Shalom link is a petition. Al Jazeera is an RS and some of the links are to news items we could cite in the relevant section, but at least for clearly marked as "opinion". I don't know if Media Lens, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada or Middle East Monitor are considered RSs, but your links are all clearly opinion pieces. American Herald Tribune is a very dodgy conspiracy theory site which publishes 9/11 denialism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial - please don't consider us linking to it. Russia Today is at best a borderline source, but this link is an opinion piece. Information Clearing House seems pretty WP:FRINGE to me. OpenDemocracyUK is a respected website, but it is opinion not reporting. Finlayson is discussed elsewhere on this talk page, and is, in my view, non-noteworthy opinion. Personally, I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pollock mentions antisemitism, but in connection with the Holocaust rather than as an accusation directed at signers of the early day motion. Her statement is so ambiguous that, in discussing it, we have actually had to try to disentangle it or interpret what it means. That's at the heart of why we're arguing about whether she's making accusations of antisemitism or not.

I did write: "I'm not, by the way, trying to argue that any or all or the following are reliable for anything apart from their author's own views, just supply examples of what the anti- [or post-] Zionist viewpoint looks like." Having said that, I do think that the anti-Zionist viewpoint is under-represented in the article and that using pro-Zionist/pro-Israel sources to supply that viewpoint is a seriously deficient approach. There are two problems (though, from the pro-Zionist viewpoint, of course, they may actually be seen as beneficial). One is that the pro-Palestinan/anti-Zionist viewpoint tends to be contained in alternative news sources or sites. The other is that the reporting in conventional news sites tends not only to be biased, but factually deficient, as outlined in the Media Reform Coalition's report. The situation is that many of what are being used as reliable sources have a common bias and that they are not actually reporting reliably on the matter in hand. One of the results is that what should be regarded as viewpoint is being presented as fact. You wrote: "I think we should minimise opinion and neutrally report what reliable sources say." How should the fact that a report from a university research group says that, bearing in mind that news sources are at the bottom end of the reliability spectrum, many of what would normally be regarded as reliable news sources here are misreporting on antisemitism in the Labour Party?

Although you've written off a lot of the links as opinion, opinion, of course, does have its place in the article. Much of the content of the used "reliable sources" is reportage of opinion, those sources having a rather one-sided bias meaning that the opinions selected have a one-sided bias also. Finlayson is, if I'm correct, a professor of political philosophy. Is her opinion really worth less than a lot of those chosen for inclusion? For the present, I'll avoid embarking on a detailed discussion of any of the linked sources, but just mention that the reason for including the RT piece was because it's a defence written by Ken Livingstone, a rather central figure in the antisemitism controvery.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the relevance of the Zionist/anti-Zionist issue here. Although the EDM was inspired by an anti-Zionist group, IJAN, it was not actually about Israel/Palestine, and Pollock made no reference to Israel/Palestine in her response, and the Ha'aretz and Mirror articles. The article already devotes two paragraphs to the Media Reform Coalition report, and it was discussed on the talk page here and it was raised on the RSN, so I probably shouldn't devote more words to it in this section, but my view is that the report is very flimsy. As for opinion, a separate section of this talk page is devoted to that question, where I list the 33+ opinion pieces already cited in this article, of which all but about 4 are pro-Corbyn and anti-Zionist or Israel-critical. I also argue there that Finlayson (a lecturer, not a professor, in political philosophy, with no record of publishing on antisemitism or the Labour Party) is not a particularly noteworthy source, although we continue to quote her in this article for some reason. Yes, the reliable secondary sources report opinions expressed by people they consider noteworthy, and we should use that to determine whether opinions are noteworthy enough for us to mention, which is proper (hence the quotations from e.g. Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman in this article - or, for that matter, Ken Livingstone, who we already quote twice from reliable sources with no need for recourse to RT, because he's obviously noteworthy), but that is different from citing opinion pieces without having any yardstick by which to establish their notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I probably didn't manage to make my personal position very clear above. I don't have any major objections to Pollock being quoted briefly (a minor one is that, as far as I can see, she doesn't actually refer to antisemitism explicitly) so long as, for the sake of neutrality, accurate descriptions of the early day motion and the Never Again for Anyone initiative which it revolves around (which would include the rationale behind the initiative) are also given.     ←   ZScarpia   02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you propose some wording? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording is linked in the RfC so we are discussing the inclusion of that specific text. That said, if we can find consensus for some other text here, that's also fine of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The question posed at the top is about whether to include at all, not whether to include a specific wording: "Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page?"     ←   ZScarpia   11:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It links to the content. Seems pretty straightforward. If you don't like that specific text, feel free to propose something else. The RfC will run for a while so there's time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's been mentioned already, but it might be worth noting that Karen Pollock was heavily involved in the mural controversy, being the person who criticised it for containing stereotypically antisemitic images.     ←   ZScarpia   16:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is that worth noting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason it 'might' is because the more she has been involved in the controversy, the more significant she becomes in her own right in this article. It looks to me as though she may have been one of the key figures in the mural-part of the controversy. I see she also made comments about Jackie Walker.     ←   ZScarpia   12:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is worth noting that she is a (not the) person noted by reliable sources who criticised the mural for containing stereotypically antisemitic images. In fact, she is widely quoted by reliable sources in relation to antisemitism in the Labour Party, suggesting she is somebody who is noteworthy for us to be referring to on this page (in much the same way as, say, Jenny Manson or Jon Lansman are (but Lorna Finlayson or Richard Seymour aren't)). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

She is widely quoted as an authority on antisemitism and Holocaust denial in the UK - by dint of her rather significant position in the Holocaust Educational Trust - one of the main UK bodies dealing with these issues. Her being quoted as an authority only increases the weight of her comments. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Making reference to it being "a form of denial and distortion" is not the same as calling it antisemitic. Such a serious accusation of placing this content on this article based on such vague wording isn't appropriate. Wikipedia needs to be careful for such a strong allegation and would need better reasons for inclusion. Ultimately, there's no evidence that the EDM was antisemitic to warrant inclusion on this article beyond the vague comment. RevertBob (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Question added at the top of this section.     ←   ZScarpia   23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. You can't add a question after people already commented. You can open a new RfC if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It was a request for clarification addressed to RevertBob, the initiator of the RFC, not a new question. The request for clarification arose directly from your intervention here: I think you have misinterpreted the purpose of the RFC. Before your intervention, I and at least one other editor commented in the RFC on the basis of a different interpretation of what the RFC is about than yours. Please don't delete my comments again without excellent reason, you know that you wouldn't like it if I did it to you.     ←   ZScarpia   11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It m=is clear the RFC is about the specific text linked to, it is the inclusion of that (and it's placement) we are voting on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-posing the request for clarification about the purpose of the RFC to RevertBob which was originally posted at the head of this section, then deleted by No More Mr Nice Guy:

"Per No More Mr Nice Guy below, is this RFC about whether this specific text should be included or whether the early day motion should be mentioned at all?     ←   ZScarpia   23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)"

    ←   ZScarpia   11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the RFC is whether the content is relevant enough to be included in this article, i.e one vague reference to it being "a form of denial and distortion" warrants inclusion in an article about accusations of antisemitism. RevertBob (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So it is not about the specific text (which is what has been suggested as being what this RFC is about)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You lost me at the top with "EDM proposal"–is that a wiki-thing, a UK Labor thing, or what? Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please write clearer requests before inviting in the random hordes...Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

An EDM is a UK parliamentary thing, an Early day motion. Probably the text would be better if it opened "In January 2011, a Early Day Motion motion was submitting to parliament to rename---" I think the question to the random hordes is whether this is DUE in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)