I have been interested in a particular double-standard that goes on within the Jayjg/IronDuke clique on Wikipedia, the labelling of certain people as "Anti-Semites", versus other labels. I will begin with the important caveat that there should be no quarter given to people who are in fact racist ideologues bent on persecution of any religious or racial minority. This, however, should not extend to the opponents of various governments and political policies.

Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) has said that "it is neither BLP nor WP:UNDUE" to call someone an "anti-semite" in a Wikipedia article, or more properly, to repeat an unnamed persons accusation that someone is such.

On the other hand, Jayjg has made it clear to Jgui (T-C-L-K-R-D) that calling Victor Davis Hanson (T-H-L-K-D) a "neoconservative" (with detailed citations) is a no-no, reminding him forcefully that "BLP is really serious stuff".

This has provided cover for Jayjg's meatpuppet IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who can't stand it when his man Daniel Pipes (T-H-L-K-D) is called a "neoconservative", even when presented with evidence that Pipes applied the label to himself.

But, like his mentor, IronDuke isn't above labelling a Malaysian politician an Anti-Semite, and reverting it many, many times against opposition, of course citing "BLP"!

If you dig into this, which isn't easy, you'll find that Jayjg is not so much nationalistically aligned as religiously. Israel Shahak (T-H-L-K-D), a Jewish scholar critical of Zionism, gets the Jayjg treatment, in this case with the substitution of sources with those pointing out Shahak's "anti-semitism". (This particular incident led to complaints on ANI, which exposed another interesting Jay tactic: he deleted someone else's ANI post, then restored it (with his own), with an edit summary of "Oops", but -- did you catch it? -- in the process, changed the title of the section from "User:Jayjg" to "Israel Shahak". Jayjg is famous for this, and IronDuke does it as well, in places I can't find just now.

So, I am in no position to say who is or is not a neo-con, or (for the most part) an anti-semite. But this is a very notable tactic in the POV-pushing toolbox of Jayjg and his minions.

I don't have the stomach to follow your links right now, but there's a simple, necessary standard for a label or accusation: do the footnotes back it up? Once that's proven, the POV-pusher is usually defeated, at least if enough other people are involved, hopefully those who aren't POV pushers themselves. Proof does seem to matter with a lot of WP editors, which is one reason why it's important to be able to do some kind of canvassing to overcome POV opposition.

Once proof is provided, the POV pusher has two more redoubts to shoot from: Say that the information is just a tiny minority view that should be ignored (I think that falls under WP:RS) or not worth mentioning under WP:UNDUE. It's a bit harder to prove the opposite -- that somethng is accepted by either a large minority or a majority of the sources.

Getting involved in Wikipedia political controversies is like wrestling in a septic tank. Too often, the facts just don't matter to the guy you're wrestling with. And there are almost no rules to govern either side's conduct, so it gets dirty.

The Daniel Pipes instance looks hilarious.

The Shahak article has been a total disgrace for years. Look; they use neo-nazi David Duke as a RS on him.

But if you used Duke as a RS on one of the Israeli leaders, you would rightly be

Getting involved with Wikipedia in any way is like wrestling in a septic tank. But it provides amusement for those of us standing on the side, and allows us to chuckle loudly at those who call it an "encyclopedia". It's a repository for the biased opinions of those who have managed to game its own internally bizarre system.