Talk:Antisemitism in the British Labour Party/Archive 12

Change in the 2021 section:

While the Jewish Labour Movement welcomed the announcement, the bans were condemned by Momentum and Unite the Union for targeting left-wing elements and worsening internal tensions within the party.^[6]

to:

While the Jewish Labour Movement welcomed the announcement, the bans were condemned by Momentum, Unite the Union, and Jewish Voice for Labour for targeting left-wing elements and worsening internal tensions within the party.^[6][7]

Add that the 2021 bans of left-wing groups were condemned by Jewish Voice for Labour (source here) - seems relevant given this article is on Antisemitism and JVL represents the views of a number of Jews within the Labour Party. Don't worry about it if you feel this isn't relevant or violates some rule, I just thought it might be a useful addition. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Could you provide a secondary source for this? Seems fine, but since the BBC isn't talking about them, it might not be notable to be included. SWinxy (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

On the talkpage of the article on Mear One's "Freedom for Humanity" mural, which is mentioned several times in the current article, I've asked editors to help track down the origin of an image which juxtaposes those shown sitting round the table in the mural with photographs of the people Mear One stated that he had painted. As can be seen, the image was posted in a reply to an article in Simon Maginn's Twitter feed whose subject matter is of relevance here and whose contents editors may also like to track down reliable sources for.     ←   ZScarpia   15:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was, but thanks for the reminder. What I've asked editors to do is help track down the origin of the image, which may, or may not, be Twitter, but I'd guess isn't.     ←   ZScarpia   15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Maginn person credits on a blog this person, Idk if that gets you any further. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Doing Google searches uncovers various possibilities. There's a clearer version of the image here. Donahue Rogers has his own Twitter feed and Facebook account. One Facebook post points back towards Mear One's own Facebook page[1].     ←   ZScarpia   16:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it that you want a ref for who are the persons in the mural supposed to be? Mear One says here "specifically Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, Warburg, as well Aleister Crowley" Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Its long been known who Mear One said he'd painted and that was ignored in the insistence that the figures represented antisemitic Jewish stereotypes, which assertion is the basis for the claim that the mural was antisemitic.. What's new is that somebody has gone to the trouble of digging out photos of the people Mear One said he painted and superimposing them over each of the figures in the mural, making a strong case that the figures do represent who they're claimed to be. I'm trying to trace the image back to the person who created it or the place where it first appeared.     ←   ZScarpia   18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. I just saw that the list of names is not actually mentioned in the article unless I missed that, just says " Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans" Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The way the article is written will reflect the source which was chosen. Other sources actually listed who each of the figures were supposed to be, though without linking them to a particular figure in the mural. The inclusion of Crowley is a bit anomalous, given that the others are industialists or bankers. As far as I know, Mear One didn't ever explain that inclusion.     ←   ZScarpia   18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That link I gave, it just says "who was a kind of philosophical guru to the ruling elite of that time and a well-known Satanist." Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The link to David Icke's website? That being the case, I'm wondering whether the "ruling elite" were lizards in disguise.

There is a Donahue Rogers' tweet containing the image which carries today's date.

There may be an explanation for the inclusion of Crowley in Mear One's video. The title, 'False Profits', is probably also a pointer.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the raw material (WP links) as well as the image are here, appears to be a "Martin Odoni", maybe twas them? Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the clearest version of the image I've seen, though it doesn't appear to have come from the Martin Odoni article from which an extract has been printed in conjuction. The link for Odoni's article on the Guerilla Wire site no longer works, but a copy can be found here. I was interested in the Sqwakbox article linked to which quotes Mear One explaining who, in order, the people featured in the mural are (beforehand, I'd seen the names given, but not the order): "The US artist who painted the mural, Kalen Ockerman, has identified the men it depicts as, from left to right, 'Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie & Warburg'." The CritiqueArchives articles by Martin Odoni have a particular resonance for me because one of those articles was the first one I supplied a link to when I wrote about David Collier on the talkpage of the UK Israel Lobby article, for which I was issued a warning.     ←   ZScarpia   00:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the pieces of information I found interesting in the CriticalThinking article you provided a link to is that it provides an explanation for why Mear One painted the mural in the location he did. The pro-Israel Press and critics claimed that he deliberately chose an area with a higher Jewish population in order to paint a provocative mural portraying antisemitic stereotypes. In fact, the wall at 45 Hanbury Street was an organised mural venue. Mear One's mural replaced another one and was itself due for replacement, though a large part of it was painted out after it was vandalised with "vicious Zionist graffiti, which was clearly inciting racial hatred and terrorism."     ←   ZScarpia   07:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Do we want citations to Twitter, blogs, and David Icke in this article? If not, what is this about? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A violation of

I think we are done here tbh, it was worth trying to find the image origin but no real progress on that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The point was to try to track down the source of an image. In doing so, sources which may have been of use in the article may have been uncovered. The essence of WP:FORUM is that editors discuss the topic, exchanging their own views about it. That didn't happen here. I'm sure that I can point you to a whole bunch of places in talkpages where editors did supply their own viewpoints about article topics, though, if you're looking for people to give a ticking off to. Of course, if we hadn't been treating shite from the pro-Israel press as having come from reliable sources, I wouldn't have been here trying to track down the source of an image in the first place.     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In order to include this information in the article, we would need discussion in reliable secondary sources. Note too that what is at issue is not whom the artist portrayed, but how they would be seen by an informed observer. They look like stereotypical Jewish banksters (even more than the people they were supposedly modelled on), and the words "New World Order" don't help. TFD (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were done. They look like stereotypical Jewish banksters is a POV though I think the picture only contains that if the viewer is actually looking for it, eye of the beholder and all, when I saw it, I only saw greedy bankers. The book My Los Angeles: From Urban Restructuring to Regional Urbanization(2014) discusses Mear One's work and does not mention anti-Semitism/Jews at all. The book shows another New World Order graffiti mural by the same artist so I think those words are little to do with anything specific to this mural, just a recurring theme of the artist. Or this book "depicted capitalists playing games on a board..the capitalists have been interpreted as Jewish caricatures. Supporters (including the artist) maintain that it is anti-capitalist not anti-Semitic" Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Res Publica - Jan Deckers, Jonathan Coulter - "What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?"[2], 11 May 2022. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4)

(longer comment left here)

    ←   ZScarpia   00:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not familiar with this journalist or these authors. The first author is a healthcare ethicist with no previous publications or teaching record on antisemitism. The second author does not appear to have an academic affiliation, but is presumably the Liberal Democrat activist under investigation by his party for antisemitism. What do you think they add to this particular article, in contrast to the many academic articles on this which we don't currently cite? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bobfrombrockley undid my switch of a link to [[Diego Vera]] to [[Diego Rivera|Diego Vera]] with the summary "Viera is a different, real person; link to Riviera is later in sentence. (The different bracket formats of the two "sic"s need checking too I think))". Vera is indeed a real person, he's an obscure Uruguayan soccer player. It seems clear that the reference was to Diego Rivera, as the later part of the sentence corrects. The link to Diego Vera is misleading, it should either be unlinked, similarly to the earlier misspelling of Rockerfeller, or correctly linked to Diego Rivera. Tassedethe (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rockefeller doesn't have a link because there's nobody of that name and we name and link him later in the sentence. Without the Vera link, we don't know there's somebody of that name, but I don't feel strongly about this. Definitely better to link Rivera from his own name in the second half of the sentence. Apologies I misspelled both names in my edit summary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if the mistake related to a similar, equally notable, person then I'd agree to link. Say if someone mixed up

Robert Kennedy. But just because there happens to be someone on Wikipedia with the name Diego Vera, who is extremely unlikely to have been the source of confusion, it just seems wrong to link to him. (And actually you were right, it was Viera, my previous comment should be littered with [sic] as well!) Tassedethe (talk

) 17:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly - whatever seems best is cool. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting with a 2018 RfC now in the talk archives, there is long-term consensus that the extremely long "Rebuttals" section needs to be trimmed, but no consensus on what should go. I think we should revisit this. I've removed a couple of obviously non-noteworthy items, and I propose the following:

1. Remove the mention of the formation of Labour Against the Witchhunt, which has already been mentioned twice in the body, either to its chronological place in 2017 if it's really noteworthy or altogther
2. Move
   Pete Willsman
   's antisemitic comment, which is not a rebuttal, out of this section to its chronological place in the body
3. Remove the very long quote of the N Ireland party, which cites two unreliable sources:
   Skwawkbox
   , an unreliable source, and the Morning Star, which is not generally reliable.
4. Remove the 2015 letter from "dozens of activists", which cites a Jewish Chronicle dead link, as these activists are not noteworthy
5. Remove Andrew Feinstein, not a relevant authority in this context, reported only by Morning Star
6. Remove letter by 14 British Jews - not sufficiently prominent for inclusion given the massive number of letters to editors in this period
7. Trim the long para about 42 senior academics - again, why this letter among all the letters?
8. Remove
   Ilan Pappe
   : his views on Israeli history might be noteworthy, but he it not an expert on Labour or antisemitism, so why does he have so much space?
9. Remove or at least trim Stephen Sedley: he might be noteworthy in relation to legal issues to do with institutional antisemitism, but his views of "pro-Israel groups" aren't noteworthy, as he has no relevant expertise in that
10. Remove
    Rebecca Ruth Gould
    in the Morning Star, as they are philosophy/literary scholars writing in not particularly authoritative publications
11. Remove Rob Ferguson - what's his source of authority on this topic?
12. Remove Gideon Levy - why is his Israeli opinion piece more noteworthy than the acres of Israeli journalists who took the opposite view?
13. Remove the Norman Finkelstein/Noam Chomsky para sourced from Morning Star and the Mondoweiss blog - these are not RSs
14. Remove Jonathan Cook - why do we need even one, let along two, sentences about Cook, sourced from Middle East Eye? He has no particular relevant expertise

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Morning Star being used as a source isn't a valid reason to remove it. the last time it was discussed it was decided that MS was a reliable source. G-13114 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

RSP says There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. It is used 16 times in the article, including many opinion pieces, and only twice attributed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

G-13114, any specific objection to removing the two MS-cited pieces I've listed (I'm not arguing for removal of the other 14)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would caution against being too enthusiastic to remove the likes of Gideon Levy/Norman Finkelstein/Noam Chomsky/Ilan Pappé - these are all prominent voices whose views can reasonably stand even when sourced to opinion pieces, provided they are attributed as such. Such perspectives provide an important subset of views and are important for balance.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Apart from Chomsky, I don't think they are prominent voices in the UK (Levy definitely isn't), and none of them seem to have relevant expertise to comment on UK politics, antisemitism or British socialism. Their opinion is nothing other than opinion, and lots of other equally prominent people expressed opinions on this hot topic in the years it was controversial. Why them specifically? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Levy perhaps not upon a second look, but Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist, which is exactly the kind of subject matter expert whose opinion is valuable in relation to a political imbroglio. He has also partly focused his studies on the ideological weaponization of identity politics, which is directly pertinent here. Ilan Pappé is meanwhile a UK-based academic and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies and also a relevant specialist.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think Pappé is a relevant specialist? He’s a historian of Israel/Palestine, not a scholar of antisemitism or the U.K. Labour Party. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pappé, like Finkelstein, is a political studies expert, and this article is as much about politics as it is stigmatization. He is also a generally prominent academic and social commentator on Israeli politics, and the censuring of Corbyn/Labour on the premise of antisemitism is as much about pro-Israeli activism as anything else.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess we'll leave Pappe in for now. He did train and teach as a political scientist, although he is known primarily as a historian and activist. I don't agree he is a prominent commentator in the UK or on UK topics. I checked Google News and the only UK coverage of him all the way back to 2015 is: an op ed in the JC on the new historians (2023), a review in the Morning Star of a book he edited about Palestine (2022), an article in the Socialist Worker about his appearance at an SWP event (2018), a review of a book about Palestine on the LSE blog (2015). I also disagree that the question of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is “as much about pro-Israeli activism as anything else”; it’s primarily about antisemitism and about Labour Party politics, and he is an expert on neither. But not pushing this unless other editors feel the same as me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would add that the material that I believe you are referring involving Stephen Sedley appear to be twice published by reliable, secondary sources, first in the London Review of Books and then quoted from there.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sedley: We currently cite the primary source (Sedley 2017 here), the LRB (a reputable outlet for opinion, although not consistently reliable) as the first in a long list of opinions in the IHRA WD section, even though his comment is not about the Labour Party but rather about the definition, and therefore adequately covered in the linked main article. (In my view, that entire "criticisms" section should be removed, as it does not belong in this article.) This might be due in an article about the definition (indeed, he features very heavily there) as a legal expert, but this article shouldn't be going in to such detail about the legality of the definition.

Then, in the "Jewish activists" sub-section of the rebuttals section, the letter to the Guardian editor he co-wrote with 13 other British Jews is listed among Jewish responses. Here we cite the primary source (Sedley et al 2018). I really don't think that's due as it has no secondary sources indicating it is noteworthy and its authors are not that prominent. It's one among many letters to the editor on this topic in this period.

Then he appears again in the "Academics and researchers" sub-section (is he an academic or a researcher?), citing a secondary source published a year later, the local paper for the Kentish Town area where he had apparently recently lived, Camden New Journal, at great length, talking about a topic on which he has no particular expertise or authority: Labour politics. This quoted an LRB article, I think a "Short Cuts" opinion piece from May 2018. I don't think he has the expertise to be worth quoting here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the 2017 mention is due on the main article but not here, and that the Camden piece is of questionable weight as well. I would retain the joint letter in the Jewish activists section, since this is not solely relying on Sedley at all for weight; the piece is jointly attributed to all 13 notable (8 have pages) signatories.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 08:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am now going to start removing the above which weren’t defended, while leaving those on which there was any disagreement. Good to have more views on those. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not with dismissing Morning Star as a source. Remember, last time an RFC was held on the Morning Star it was decided that it was a reliable source to be used on a BLP, pretty much the gold standard in wiki terms. The rfc finished with the conclusion "What this means for us Wikipedia editors is that the Morning Star can be used as a source but we should strive for context and, if we can help it, try not to have it as the sole source" So dimissing content based on MS sourcing cannot be justified in my view, especially in this context. G-13114 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, but what about the specific suggestions I made which relate to the Morning Star: specifically, what is the case for the noteworthiness of the paragraph about Andrew Feinstein? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Weaponising Anti-Semitism

HOW THE ISRAEL LOBBY BROUGHT DOWN JEREMY CORBYN

ASA WINSTANLEY

Might not this article include information from books such as this one, along with the 'Leaked' Labour Report, the Forde Report and the Labour Files, to form a new section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.241 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia operates based on reliable sources. Neither the author nor the publisher come anywhere close to satisfying our policy of

WP:RS. (A book from OR Books, a print-on-demand publisher, is in no way automatically excluded if the author is well known and satisfy RS independently. Asa Winstanley does not. And quite frankly, whenever an IP only edits to push for the inclusion of an obscure book, it look a lot like promotion). Jeppiz (talk

) 09:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As a minor point, the article also seems to conflate anti-Israel politics with antisemitism, a conflation which can (ironically enough) also be considered antisemitic - in that Israel and its politics doesn't equate to all of Jewish folk, nor is Israel only made up of Jewish people. The article should consider divorcing the two subjects. 124.168.219.70 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

its interesting that Naz Shah's remark was aimed at Israel. I don't agree with it but it seems similiar to Ben Carson's remark (Carson said he is not opposed to a Palestinian state, but he questioned why it needs "to be within the confines of Israeli territory ... Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt?") - is that quote included in an anti-palestinism in the republican party page ? 82.11.163.59 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not an unchallenged or unchallengable point that there actually ever was a massive or even significant increse in antisemitism within Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, OR that any such antisemitism was ever primarily extant among left-wing Labour people. It is also not an unchallengable or unchallenged point that non-Zionism, anti-Zionism or even substantive criticism of the Israeli government that is not expressed within a tone of special deference that no other government on the planet is ever given with people express dissent against its "security" policies are anything other than fair-minded, fairly-expressed discussion on a pertinent issue of the day. Criticism of what the Israeli governent does to ordinary Palestinians is simply dissent against the policies of a sitting government. Refusal to support Zionism, a now-permanently right-wing nationalist movement that achieved all of its objectives in 1948 by creating the state it sought, a state whose survival is guaranteed no matter what, should not be treated as any different than refusal to support any OTHER already-concluded nationalist movement. 71.197.252.146 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I dunno about that, but it does seem like this article's massive size was partially glutted by

WP:SYNTHy, especially the background and polling parts - we should focus on removing any source that doesn't specifically talk about antisemitism in Labour. But to get back to your main point, based on the content, the article's title should reference Corbyn specifically, not Labour. --Aquillion (talk

) 19:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A better title may be "Allegations of Antisemitism in the Labour Party", but generally agree with this change. The article includes a large amount of content that includes both proven, unproven, and disproven allegations, and a title along these lines would be more accurate. The article clearly needs quite a lot of refinement in addition to this however. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Given this and the length it seems likely this article requires a

WP:SPLIT, with an article on the overall history and then one on allegations from 2015 onwards. EditorOnOccasion (talk

) 22:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Or just some further trimming of the dated

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The short description ironically clarifies the subject as "allegations".

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

But it does parallel the approach in

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I just made some edits without reading this section first; not sure why I missed it in August. I support the trimming (thanks Iskandar for your trims) and agree that it should match the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party. Partly for that reason strongly oppose a name change to focus on Corbyn (which would delete the pre-Corbyn history and create a recentist article, and strongly oppose a rename with "allegations". I've edited the lead and short description so they reflect the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This article has become a

Agree. See previous talk section for some suggestions to start with. Any thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 I think you accidentally reverted some of my trimming and tagging when you rightly did your trim just now. I've restored - hope I've not made a mistake. BobFromBrockley (talk

) 21:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, very sorry, not sure what happened there at all

Iskandar323 (talk

) 06:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've slightly lost track of what's going on on this page, but I know there's still more opinion to expunge - there's just a complex web of sfns linking back to many of the opinion pieces - it's a bugger hunting down many of the loose ends.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The sfns refs do make it harder to untangle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we content-fork "Rebuttals"? It's the only section not placed on the strict timeline of the rest of the article. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is/would be better to integrate any rebuttals alongside the claims that are being rebutted. Splitting off all counterclaims would just create two unbalanced pages.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 16:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Re Iskandar suggestion of integrating rebuttals alongside claims: I might support that to some extent if it was possible, but the problem here would be making sure we were only including rebuttals with due weight and not filling the main part of the body with opinion pieces, especially from non-noteworthy commentators. At the moment, we have a vast amount of opinion (and it is very unrepresentative of the opinion published in the period in reliable sources, as almost all of the opinion pieces are the rebuttals, which were probably a minority of what was published). BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can fork it between Corbyn and everyone else then, reorg the page to go by different types of accusations and controversy instead of the timeline and then just have a short "Jeremy Corbyn" section with a {main} link to Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be more in favour of starting by trimming the opinion heavily (there seems to b e consensus on doing that, but perhaps not on which part of the opinion to expunge) and then seeing where we are. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

While providing some useful counters to many of the evidence-free claims of anti-semitism within the Labour Party, this section might be improved (style-wise) with a little slimming down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.26 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Trimming proposed

As there seems to be consensus for trimming, I am going to boldly trim some opinion content now.

I'd also suggest that the subsection on the IHRA has too much opinion content and should be trimmed back to the facts. Agreed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As no objections, have done this now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I will soon start to trim the material in the responses that is tagged with undue weight. Please speak out here if you disagree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead section as-written is not an accurate summary of the contents of this article. The article covers allegations of antisemitism since the 20th Century and yet the introduction describes allegations since 2015 only. It would be advisable to rewrite or

I've added a more historical opening sentence and deleted a paragraph of unnecessary recent detail. Not opposed to a split, but prefer the trimming of yesterday's news (as Iskandar323 put it above), as the post-2015 is unnecessarily detailed and choked with undue opinions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a long third paragraph of this section which seems to me undue past the first two sentences, as it isn't actually about the subject of this article. Removing it would be one step towards word length reduction. Any objections? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As no reply will do this now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)