Misplaced Pages

Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:29, 1 December 2021 editBob drobbs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,822 edits "the social media activity of 14 Labour Party members showed a pattern of greatly increased references to Israel, antisemitism and British Jewry": It's in the JP article← Previous edit Revision as of 00:38, 1 December 2021 edit undoSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,158 edits "the social media activity of 14 Labour Party members showed a pattern of greatly increased references to Israel, antisemitism and British Jewry"Next edit →
Line 66: Line 66:
::::Whatever the sourcing, why is the social media activity ("references") of 14 Labour Party members of interest? Have they been expelled? Or what? ] (]) 00:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC) ::::Whatever the sourcing, why is the social media activity ("references") of 14 Labour Party members of interest? Have they been expelled? Or what? ] (]) 00:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::::: This JP article discusses that study in depth including answering your question: -- ] (]) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC) ::::: This JP article discusses that study in depth including answering your question: -- ] (]) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::::::I look forward to seeing your edit, due and appropriately sourced.] (]) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:38, 1 December 2021

Antisemitism in the British Labour Party received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitism in the British Labour Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOrganized Labour Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:


Labour antisemitism claims pre Corbyn

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

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

Writing in Last Paragraph of overview which gives inaccurate ideas

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

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

Here's what I suggest it should change to:

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

Opening Blurb

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

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

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

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