Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Black September terrorists were buried in Lybia

Can someone please add this also there are lots of other sources, thanks in advance! https://evolvepolitics.com/there-were-8-munich-terrorists-none-are-buried-at-the-tunis-cemetery-that-jeremy-corbyn-visited/ SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

More main stream sources would be good -- BOD -- 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This would need to be mentioned in a current source that also discusses Corbyn and the wreath ceremony, otherwise it very clearly falls under the prohibition against Original Research and/or Synthesis of sources. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It is absolutely irrelevant and nobody introducing the changes has even attempted to argue why it is. No member of the group physically involved in killings at Munich are referenced in *any* other reference piece in the text. It's a random insertion. Nobody actually claims the terrorists who carried out the attack were buried there. But rather members of Black September were. It is an irrelevent aside that is only used to detract from what the actual allegations are.Super-Mac (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole article is about a Daily Mail story based on circumstantial evidence. Corbyn was near a memorial to they guys who organised the Munich Massacre, thats it, no proof that he was linked to that memorial other than a measure in yards. Given that its more than legitimate to point out that none of the actual perpetrators were buried there. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the evidence considering Corbyn has admitted to being at a commemoration for Black September members. You're trying to push this as if only the Mail is claiming it happened. Corbyn himself has agreed with all but one of these claims, the only one he disagrees with is the wreath. Super-Mac (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

At the moment all we have is claim and counter claim and your take on it is one possible reading and its far from clear if you are right or not. Pending something other than current news items reporting partisan positions, lets keep things balanced. Corby says be was there for one purpose, the Mail and others imply he was there for another. Corbyn, as per usual, is not adept at handling such stories and has further confused things. The only safe way in a current news controversy is to avoid falling into the trap of allowing wikipedia to propogate phrases and story lines from one side or the other. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

“A wreath was indeed laid by some of those who attended the conference for those who were killed in Paris in 1992.", Asked whether he was involved in the wreath laying in relation to the Munich terrorists, Mr Corbyn said: “I was present when it was laid. I don’t think I was actually involved in it.” This isn't from one side. It's Corbyn agreeing to what was said by several other news sources. You still haven't listed out why it's relevant for the people physically involved in killing at Munich to be mentioned, even though asked to several times. Super-Mac (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

He was present in the grave yard, we don't at the moment really know more than that. Listing all the things in the grave yard to create guilt by association requires some counter balance.-----Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought we also knew that he was “15 yards away" from the memorial to the victims of the 1985 bombing but only “a couple of metres” from the graves of Atef Bseiso and Salah Khalaf? [1]?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

At my Uncle's funeral several years ago I was at leat 15 yards away from his grave and almiost certainly close to the grave of a previous long term rival in his bowls club. It should not be read as my betraying famkly loyalty, it was simply as close as I could get at the time. We have no idea if the yardage is in any way significnt. If it turns out to be then all well and good, but the moment we don't know we just have claim, counter-claim and inuendo -----Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We also know that he was visiting a major conference and we know some of the people he was with? But yes, I realise bowls can be a particularly murky and cut-throat endeavor, especially the yardage. And who's idea was it to bury all those dead people, so close together, in the same place (... called a cemetery)!? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the guardian reported this[2]

""Labour said that some of those buried at the cemetery, including Khalaf and Atef Bseiso, were senior political figures in the PLO. The party said that “both have been accused by Israel of having had links with Black September in the early 1970s, though they always denied it, as has the PLO. Both were senior Fatah and PLO leaders of the time, and Palestinian officials continue to pay respects to them.”

The spokesman added: “Jeremy did not take part in laying wreaths on their graves.” The party said the wreath the Labour leader was pictured holding was for victims of the 1985 air strike and its decorative ribbon says in Arabic “monitoring the Palestinian legal and political issue” and that was the title of the conference he was attending."

Can anyone add these informations, thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Snowded, he didn't hold the wreath 15 yards from the Munich guy memorial but right next to it. The 15 yards were measured from the 85 memorial. So, for which memorial do you believe it was intended? Corbyn was obviously parts of that ceremony. Kigelim (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Was that one Munich guy or four Munich guys? Has anyone seen a plan of the cemetery to verify the claims about yards and metres? How far was the memorial from the actual graves of those four? Maybe the memorial had been situated there because there was nowhere else to put it? Sounds like that cemetery was getting a bit crowded by 2014? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

36.729266, 10.324704 Coordinates of the place. Black September graves are the ones with Palestinian flags visible via satelite. Plaque just in front of them is where Corbyn was stood. Tunisia plaque not visible on satellite but on the right far to the side of the Red canopy. Super-Mac (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the BBC's in-vision tourist guide to that part of the cemetery.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45201405/inside-the-jeremy-corbyn-wreath-row-cemetery-in-tunisia

The photographs posted on Facebook by the Palestinian embassy in Tunis show Corbyn being handed the wreath and holding it in front of the grave of Salah Khalaf, the leader of Black September, who, according to Abu Daoud (who actually led the Munich team), ordered the Munich attack. Again, here is Lara Marlowe's 2006 Irish Times interview with Abu Daoud.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/massacre-in-munich-1.1004843?mode=amp

In the Palestinian embassy's photographs, Corbyn's wreath is then seen in position on Khalaf's grave -- which is unmistakable because of the plaque in front of it -- and Corbyn is standing back reverently. Earlier in the day, at the main memorial to the victims of the 1985 air raid, 5km away across town, a wreath was laid, but Corbyn did not take part and was photographed standing right at the back of the crowd. A second ceremony was then held at the Palestinian cemetery, at the graves of the 'four martyrs' (Bseiso, Abdel-Hamid, Khalaf and Al-Omari, reading from left to right as you face the graves), and this time Corbyn was front and centre, placing the wreath on Khalaf's grave. There is a memorial plaque to the victims of the 1985 air raid in the cemetery, listing their names in Arabic, but it is against the wall off-camera about 15 metres to the right as you look at the photographs.

https://twitter.com/LatestMessiah/status/1029337340026806272

To Channel 4 News, Corbyn admitted laying a wreath (as he admitted to the BBC in 2017, but then denied last week), but claimed it was for all those who died in the 1985 air raid. He was lying, because, as the photographs prove, he did not lay the wreath at the main 1985 memorial that day. He laid his wreath later, 5km away, on the grave of Black September leader Salah Khalaf, 'Abu Iyad'. However, to massage the awkward facts, he claimed to Channel 4 that Khalaf, whom he identified as 'Arafat's No.2', was killed in the 1985 air raid, which of course he wasn't and no one has ever said he was -- he was killed by an Abu Nidal gunman (Hamza Abu Zaid) in January 1991 and the plaque in front of his grave states the date '1991.1' even if you can't read Arabic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-95TdSUG_k

Corbyn's complaint to Ipso about the press coverage is... interesting, because the press stories stand up and Corbyn's own multiple conflicting self-contradicting accounts do not. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks that the BBC guide, which was very instructive. I think it should certainly be added as an external link in the Wreathgate article. Not a huge area is it? Must have been quite crowded when whole conference +=and paparazzi all crammed int it. I wonder how much choice Corbyn had about where he could stand to hold that wreath? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) p.s. he's quite clear in the Channel 4 YT clip. Not sure why he gets such a bad press for wanting peace.

The whole conference didn't go there. Lord Sheikh didn't, for instance, and nor did the Sinn Fein MP. The crowd even appears to be smaller than at the air-raid memorial, so it was quite a select gathering. Corbyn presumably placed the wreath where he was told to place it, on the grave of the highest-status individual buried there, the PLO's deputy head of state, Khalaf. The only photographer present, so far as we know, was the Palestinian embassy's. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that Corbyn laid his own special wreath on that one particular grave? And that we have a photograph of that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Corbyn laid his own special wreath on Salah Khalaf's grave, and the photographs from the Palestinian embassy's Facebook account show that (it's the grave with the plaque in front of it, where you can see the wreath laid as Corbyn reverently stands back afterwards, having posed with the wreath in preparation for laying it) and Corbyn told Channel 4 News that he laid his wreath on the grave of 'Arafat's No.2', which was Khalaf, but then lied that Khalaf was killed in the 1985 air raid, which he wasn't. The wreath-laying at the air-raid memorial was 5km away and some time earlier and Corbyn did not lay a wreath there, he stood right at the back. There is a plaque to the air-raid victims in the Palestinian cemetery, but that is not where Corbyn laid his wreath, he laid it on the grave of Black September leader Salah Khalaf. The sources have all been previously given, in some cases more than once. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps you could also tell us what he said as he was laying it? Might make a useful quote for the article. Or did he perhaps hand-pick the flowers himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not one specific grave. There's a plque for Tunisia bombing victims and a plaque for "Martyrs" which includes several Black September members. The graves of the Black September members are also in front of and behind the latter plaque which is the one Corbyn was photographed at. Super-Mac (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The version in the article right now does a pretty good job of summarizing what's in the sources. If anything it should be condensed here. I reverted the recent undiscussed rewrite of the section because it removed sourced information and added off topic information [3]. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't see the talk page point before revert. I still think my edit is better. There is now evidence in there that Khalaf was not only allegedly the founder of Black September but the other mastermind who admitted to planning the Munich attacks names Khalaf as a co-organizzer in the massacre, Khalaf also mentions his involvement in his memoir. Super-Mac (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you should self-revert because there is a 1RR restriction on this page. Also what you are adding seems to be WP:SYNTH. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this addition is WP:UNDUE here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Khalaf was mentioned by name in the Labour party response to the issue. Only right to dedicate a sentence to explain who he was considering the amount of mentions within all of those linked to references previously also. Which particular aspect of WP:UNDUE do you think has been hit? Super-Mac (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Did the Labour Party see the need to mention or quote from his memoir? Is that aspect of his life something that better explains Corbyn's actions in a cemetery in 2014? I'd suggest not. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus for these edits [4] [5] [6] (agreed with who?) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] - isn't this a lot of reverts for a 24 hour period? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)r

I tend to agree. Edits seem to be just wholly going past any discussion here. It's starting to get a bit disruptive, to be honest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am unhappy to been sucked into an edit war, I want this BLP to be neutral and deeply apologize if I was disruptive in any way.-- BOD -- 18:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that section still contains information about Khalaf to which Corbyn would not have known at the time of the ceremony and which is WP:UNDUE and misleads the reader into thinking he did know.-- BOD -- 18:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Once Again Neutrality is being deleted from this BLP page to show a one sided view of the story

Why have the very relevant BBC and Channel 4 passages with citations been removed.-- BOD -- 21:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

IN the main I suspect because Clive doesn't like them :-) But they have both been removed which is at least balanced -----Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Except The BBC News report film, even with the Channel 4 report, undermines the Daily Mail original unproven allegations and all that has risen out of it.-- BOD -- 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Because what the BBC "suggested" or speculation as to what Corbyn may or may not have thought is not encyclopaedic - All encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) Clivel 0 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly more encyclopedic and more neutral than anything written in the Daily Mail. -- BOD -- 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we (maybe not me) restore the reliable third party BBC News report at least to balance the daily mail accusations?-- BOD -- 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail unequivocally fails WP:RS; on a WP:BLP, where sourcing standards are particularly high, we cannot even mention accusations from them, at all, unless they are sourced to a secondary source other than the Daily Mail itself. The removal of the other sources requires instantly removing the entire paragraph, since it's negative material that lacks an acceptable source. We must us a source other than the Daily Mail if we want to cover that aspect at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail role in this story is just in bringing to people attention. With the photos available on line and now BBC idea anyone can judge whether or not Corbyn held the wreath (not laid it) near the 85 memorial or near the BS graves. From th video clearly he held them near the BS graves.

My point is, many papers mention DM bc it broke the story but even the BBC agrees Corbyn stood next to BS graves but suggest it can be for reasons other than paying respect. (IMO, Corbyn debunk this apologist option with his Morning Star article, but that’s not the point). Kigelim (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be fairly factual account of everything[12]. RevertBob (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes the BBC Link just mentioned seems to be fair, thorough and balanced. A lot better than the Daily Mail. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, the article doesn’t even mention the pictures so I can’t see how it is “factual”. The text is extremely sanitized. Corbyn explains he didn’t think he was participating but why did he even had to explain anything? The controversy is left out. Kigelim (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

He had to explain because of the unprovoked smear attack from the Daily Mail and the ensuing interminable barrage of media questions? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But the reader won’t know about that campaign because it is never mentioned. The facts are many people think his action was support of terror, he didn’t think so. Right now, the controversy was washed from the article. Kigelim (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Why even leave it under “Allegations of antisemitism and responses”. The part left all the allegations out. Kigelim (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we be adding uncertain, maybe even ill-founded controversy to a BLP. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There are still problems in the London Labour Briefing section

There still seem to be a number of problems in the London Labour Briefing section. I have listed these below in roughly the order in which they occur.

1. This mixture of words was deleted but has recently been added again. It does not make an English sentence. “It has been reported by several sources that he served as its general secretary for some time but Corbyn later claimed these reports were inaccurate after it came to light following the Brighton hotel bombing by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the editorial board of London said the bombings showed that "the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it" “.

2. The following section is about the London Labour Briefing and is not relevant to Corbyn. “In December 1984, the magazine carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start." It mocked Norman Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel and whose wife was left permanently paralysed, saying: "Try riding your bike now, Norman". The same issue carried an editorial piece from the editorial board which "disassociated itself" from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a "serious political misjudgment" “.

3. “The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as general secretary” - the link is only to “The Economist. Economist Newspaper Limited” not to the specific article mentioned.

4. “… as did Wolmar, Goss and Lansley as part of their 1989 book "The rise and fall of the municipal left”” - the book referred to mentions Corbyn on pages 16, 18 and 21 but, as far as I can tell, only states he served as part of the editorial board and launched the campaign ‘Target 82’.

5. “… a Parliamentary profile service profile on Corbyn … ” - what is a “Parliamentary profile service profile”? Also the link to the source is broken.

Burrobert 02:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The latest update to the section has removed problems 1 and 2 from the above list. However, items 3, 4 and 5 remain. Also the phase "ignited controversy" seems too emotive for an encyclopaedia. Would "caused controversy" be more appropriate?

Burrobert 06:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Ah apologies. I should have looked at this section before I made my edits on the London Labour Briefing section.

I managed to access the Economist source online, and it does mention Corbyn as general secretary. I cannot access The Rise and Fall of the Municipal Left fully online, but considering what you have just said it seems like there may have been just a subtle mistake; I've removed that as of now, until someone can access the source properly. And since Roth's profile is a dead link, it makes sense to just use the citations to secondary sources which mention this profile.

I've also changed some of the wording, as you suggested, and I'm going to add Militant (Crick's 2016 ed) as another source for Corbyn being on the London Labour Briefing. Crick himself also discusses the issue here on Twitter. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: Thanks for that. I think the section holds up better now.

Burrobert 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Re these edits, why are you repeatedly re-adding contentious information regarding London Labour Briefing into the article without discussing here first? The comments from the editorial board have been removed from this article as they relate to the Briefing, not Corbyn. A brief summary here may be appropriate, but this seems undue weight – especially considering Corbyn's denial, no matter how convincing one may find the denial to be. Bangalamania (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Existential Threat, bottom of Jeremy Corbyn#Responses

"existential threat" is a bit extreme, sounds far to much like its trying to invoke the horrors of the last century .... it is not factual, it is scaremongering without a real solid basis and should be removed. The selective quote from Corbyn is not placed there as a real balance. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wholly agree. I find this quote quite disturbing. I'm not against including some of the reaction from the Jewish press, later quoted by Jonathan Goldstein, but this seems to me to be straying just too far into the realms of rhetoric and hyperbole. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I too agree that the quote is ridiculously hyperbolic. That being said, the "existential threat" quote of the leading Jewish newspapers in the UK is notable and even made international news (quoted in NYTimes and others). The fact that it was so extreme seems, in part, why the quote is notable. So I don't think it should be removed for *that* reason.

However, I think it would be best to summarise that section anyway (expanded info can be included on the antisemitism article), so we only really need to say that the papers condemned Corbyn and not use the exact quote here. (Strikethrough – see below --Bangalamania (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)) – Bangalamania (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So you just edited, confirming the exact quote, so that it now appears twice?Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought that if the quote is to be included, then Corbyn's response to it should as well. Just saying that Corbyn dismissed the front page, instead of noting that Corbyn acknowledged a lack of trust with the Jewish community & antisemitism within the Labour Party in his Guardian column seems selective.

But I have no problem with that response being removed entirely if there is consensus to do so, or for the newspaper criticism bit to condensed/reworded. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion here. Editors thinking that threat assessments are "scaremongering" do not account for much. Coverage does. As is clear by an BEFORE for Corbyn+"existential threat" this is taken seriously by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, Der Spiegel, and dozens of world outlets (as well as UK ones) - and is covered in a lasting fashion (e.g in the Tunisia kerfuffle this was frequently background and/or brought up). Frankly we should be discussing where in the lede this should go and if there is an appropriate category to add to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it would definitely be undue weight to put this in the lede. I can see that there is sufficient RS coverage that we can't leave it off altogether, but a line down at the bottom of responses is just about right. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Stricken through my original comment in case of any misunderstanding. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Any mention must clearly state that is an assertion and we need balancing quotes if it is to be included -----Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is also true. I would say that Corbyn calling this assertion "overheated rhetoric" (as is already in the article) would be adequate as a counter-quote, personally. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• In reply to Icewhiz yes the are indeed accusations made in the press, but actual detailed surveys into antisemitism do not support those accusations. Antisemitism is evil, unfair accusation is not good. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Surveys of the Jews in the UK actually back this up strongly, as does incident data. There is no real countering survey evidence other than some survey evidence on Labour supporters as a whole - however the accusations are more focused on elements in Labour's leadership and hardcore supporters of the Corynite faction - for which survey evidence is different. Regardless, we cover public figures according to the manner they are covered in RS, and considering any decent profile of Corbyn in past couple of months covers the claim he is an "existential threat" - this belongs in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

While the have been incidents, I am not sure which surveys into the corbynite leadership you are referring to. In the 2016, Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into antisemitism in the UK, they found "no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party". ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice

This article is mentioned on Jimbo's talk page here: User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Jeremy Corbyn --David Tornheim (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Surveys on antisemitism under Corbyn's leadership

Should we include surveys on antisemitism under Corbyn's leadership? I have removed the section as it seems to rely on Evolve Politics (not RS) and primary sources, but it's probably best that this is sorted out on the talk page, or we'll have another edit war going on.--Bangalamania (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(Very brief response to the above. Thank you Bangalamania i should not have reposted, but brought it here. Will respond to rest later. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 07:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC) )

Evolve Politics does qualify as RS as it is a member of IMPRESS. Unfortunately given the dire state of the UK media these days you certainly can't rely on any "mainstream" sources to report anything regarding Corbyn in a remotely balanced fashion, so it is essentially impossible to produce any sort of balance in an article like this without including non-mainstream sources like EP. I can't see any reason for not including it. G-13114 (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There are polls specifically on Labour - and even better - Corbyn. e.g British Jews - "Eighty-three per cent of those taking part in a survey said they thought racist sentiment was not sufficiently challenged among Labour MPs, members and supporters, compared to 19 per cent about the Conservatives."[13][14] and General population - "34% think Labour tolerates antisemitism, while 33% think Corbyn is antisemitic"[15]. This has become a standard polling question both in the general public and in polls directed at the Jewish community, and definitely merits mention.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The same person who doesn't want to include Corbyn's voting record as WP:PRIMARY wants to consider as notable a minority view in an opinion poll? I would suggest you review WP:TEND Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If Evolve Politics is RS I definitely suppoert and agree with G-13114 regards the problem we have in this article due to the lack of balanced or neutral news media in the UK. If other polls are relevant and acceptable again no problem. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that Evolve Politics is RS, especially not for a BLP. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RS/N seems to disagree with you on that point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad it has been brought to the noticeboard (as mentioned there, this issue has come up a lot in articles, especially recently), although I have to point out that consensus has not been reached yet and is not simply a majority vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Also, the fact that most people commenting have come there from this article lends itself to bias; best to wait in order to see what the outcome is. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Too soon - Frankly this story developed too recently to know whether it's going to form any substantial part of Corbyn's biography. Including it now would constitute pretty blatant WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold up, are you saying it's too soon to talk about the allegations that Corbyn is anti-semitic or specifically to the Evolve Politics response to those allegations? Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: - So granted I don't follow UK politics too closely, but hasn't the Corbyn angle of this labor anti-semetism thing only cropped up over the past couple months? NickCT (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: It's the latest tactic to try and discredit Corbyn, but effectively it's an extension of the grievance certain parties have over his tendency to support the Palestinians over Israel and that's been going on basically since the day he secured his leadership. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh - this dates back to 2016 or so (or earlier) - see for instance Jeremy Corbyn launches antisemitism report amid controversy, June 2016, Guardian, The anti-Semitism controversy roiling the UK Labour party, explained, Vox, June 2016, Jeremy Corbyn's response to anti-Semitism in Labour criticised by MPs, BBC 16 October 2016. It's been a recurring issue since his appointment to leadership. A poll of British Jews back in 2016 - [16] - stated that "almost 87 per cent felt there is antisemitism among Labour's members and elected representatives." (this actually improved to 83% in 2017).Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold on a tick. I agree the story as it relates to the Labor Party isn't recentism. But I'm not sure if that's true of the story as it relates to Corbyn himself. My understanding is that Corbyn's association got a little more attention due to his recent "irony" comment faux pas. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It has been linked to Corbyn all along (see him in the headline in the articles I linked above - and if not in the headline - in the photo and byline). What has been changing is the scandal du jour... So this month - it was Tunisia (wreaths), lack of understanding of irony by British Zionists, and RA/AFA, and maybe a few more. Other times it was they way the part was handling complaints. Or not adopting IHRA in full. Or all sorts of other things. Corbyn/Labour's handling of antisemitism has been as issue from at least early 2016.Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The controversy du jour might shift in detail, but this is the latest salvo in an ongoing debate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: - I appreciate the debate is old. In fact, from what I can tell it probably started really brewing up in the 2016 London Mayoral race. My point is really just to ask, who the "primary" subjects in the debate are. The Labor party or Corbyn. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party has been an issue for a while now (the main article goes into the history of the anti-Zionist left and accusations of antisemitism); however, the issue has mostly cropped up under Jeremy Corbyn and his past associations, which have been discussed ad nauseum on this article and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. These surveys are clearly directly related to Jeremy Corbyn as they correspond to his leadership of the Labour Party, which is when the issue gained headlines. This also fits the framing of this by the Skwawkbox ref, although I would argue that as a blog this fails WP:BLOGS.

A lot of the British media – both right- and left-leaning – have been highly critical of Corbyn's alleged antisemitism. As such, a lot of left-wing blogs (which I would argue fail RS as per BLOGS and reliability issues, although see discussion above regarding Evolve Politics) have brought up Corbyn's anti-racist voting record in parliament to counteract this bias by the mainstream media (which isn't entirely unwarranted, as the media in the UK is Conservative leaning).

As far as I can see, these motions have not been mentioned in the mainstream press RSes (except for the Independent reference), partially because of political bias but also because there is a whole lot of notability difference between signing obscure anti-racist motions as a backbencher, and the current antisemitism furore within the party. This is why I don't think the surveys should be included in the article. It is worth noting that even those usually on the Corbynite left have expressed dismay at his handling of the issue (the most high profile of these is probably John McDonnell: [17]) --Bangalamania (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: - If you look at the headlines you presented, they all seem to relate to Corbyn responding to accusations of anti-antisemitism within the labor party. Again, I feel like up until now, most of the story has centered around the party and only peripherally around Corbyn as its leader. That seems to be changing now.

Regardless, I'll repeat that I'm no expert on UK politics, so my opinion probably ain't worth much. But it seems to me like up until now Corbyn's steered pretty clear of direct allegations. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In the past it was more around Corbyn's handling/mishandling of allegeded antisemitism of others. The past 1-3 months have been more direct at Corbyn, though this is not entirely new it was not the focus previously.Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

re "though this is not entirely new it was not the focus previously." - And that's really the only point I was trying to make. The focus seems like recentism. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How does this relate to the inclusion of the surveys, though? The surveys are of the Labour Party membership and their own views (which is influenced by the influx of Corbyn supporters into the party), not Corbyn himself. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: - I would argue we not include the surveys on the basis that their relationship to Corbyn is basically recentism. NickCT (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think I understand. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Raed Salah

@יניב הורון: can you please discuss these contentious WP:NPOV breaking edits here and determine if consensus supports inclusion before re-inserting them? Seriously there's significant WP:DUE with whether Hamas said something nice about Corbyn once. It's not relevant to his story. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking? Salah was in the article for ages (e.g in this version from a few weeks ago) and was recently removed (not sure by who). This connection is well established - commented on by Corbyn and others - with coverage spanning from at least 2011 to present - 2015, 2018, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2011, 2012.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There are three edits I reverted - and I'll admit one was stronger than the other two. In order of how vehemently I oppose them:

1: [18] Oppose in the strongest terms Unsourced smear, WP:SYNTH

2: [19] Oppose as remover I deleted this comment because I thought it was undue weight and an attempt to damn Corbyn with praise from a generally disliked group. Corbyn should not be held responsible for who praises him, or should we go and insert mention of every Republican David Duke has said something nice about?

I would also agree with this. It seems to violate BLP through guilt by association. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

3: [20] Suggest rewording It's overly vague just saying he "praised" Salah. I'm not challenging the inclusion of reference here but think it needs massaging. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Then suggest a re-wording of Salah - instead of cutting this long standing content out wholesale. As for the endorsement by Hamas, we generally include endorsements of politicians. Corbyn's relationship with Hamas is not a secret - to the contrary - Corbyn himself wrote of enjoying a takeway dinner with Mashal - [21][22].Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to work on a re-wording for the Salah page, but per BRD, we remove first and then discuss, which is what I did. I think your reading of the inclusion of endorsements situation is overly broad which is why I'm citing WP:DUE Hamas is not even a British political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a BRD situation. The content on Salah is in the stable version of the article - e.g. in May 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The source used for Salah in that version of the article doesn't even mention Corbyn. It says that Corbyn supported Salah in 2012, yet the citation itself is from 2007. Clearly a case of OR and SYNTH. Just because it's long-standing doesn't mean it should be included. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that when I see a contentious piece of content inserted the onus on me is to review the article history back to May in case it was previously not in contention? A statement was inserted. It was, from my perspective, a new insertion. I reverted it and challenged it with a specific, good-faith, request to discuss at talk. This is what WP:BRD is for. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

4: Comment: I removed content about Raed Salah. One mentioned Corbyn's praise for him, and one mentioning his blood libel comments. The blood libel source did not mention Corbyn and the Corbyn appraisal source did not mention blood libel; therefore, I concluded that it violated WP:SYNTH. As per the recent re-inclusion of Salah, I would generally agree with Simonm223 here and suggest rewording. I am not against the inclusion (these edits do not engage in OR/SYNTH like the one I removed), but it needs to be more specific. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Salah Revision proposal

Here's my proposal to revise the Salah ref:

In 2012, Corbyn praised Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, saying Salah, "represents his people extremely well and his is a voice that must be heard," prior to Salah's blood libel statements being made public.

This provides both what Corbyn actually said, and contextualizes it that Corbyn very well may not have been aware of Salah as anything other than a strident advocate for Palestine; which I must hasten to add does categorically not make a person an anti-semite. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

But it lacks context (Salah's multiple convictions were well known in 2012), and relies on the Spectator. How about:

In 2012, Corbyn praised Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, saying Salah, "represents his people extremely well and his is a voice that must be heard," Salah was convicted in Israel for funding Hamas, contact with Iranian intelligence and other charges.

Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

My main concern WRT context in the Salah quote is that it is being used to imply Corbyn was supportive of Salah's blood libel comments, which, from a timeline perspective, doesn't appear to be necessarily true. Furthermore, being charged with a crime is rather different from being convicted of a crime. Especially when the body doing the charging is one as highly politicized as Israel in the Netanyahu period. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is quite unlikely Corbyn was unaware. The UK government (Theresa May as Home Secretary at the time) attempted to block his entry due to "The Home Office presented four allegations of antisemitism against him, all drawn from the Israeli press: that Salah wrote a poem in which he described Jews as "criminal bombers of mosques, slaughterers of pregnant women and babies, robbers and germ in all time"; that he promoted martyrdom; that he invoked a blood libel invocation by saying that "blood had been mixed in the dough of Holy Bread" and that he referenced a fake document, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in saying that a third temple would be build on the ruins of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem." in 2011 - prior to the visit with Corbyn and Corbyn's stmts. He had been previously convicted in Israel.May warned of weak case against Sheikh Raed Salah, Guardian, Sep 2011. The "blood libel" is on BBC right before he meets with Corbyn - BBC, 2011. Corbyn then commented on the successful appeal - JC, 2012. The Salah affair (in relation to Corbyn) isn't new - it was well covered back in 2011-2012.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I recall, and I remember at the time a lot of suggestions that people were trying to draw lines that didn't exist regarding what Corbyn may have known. But us using this article to propose that Corbyn did know would certainly be WP:SYNTH - it would also be WP:SYNTH for us to say he did not know, which is an argument in favour of leaving this off as being a strong approach to protecting WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

IceWhiz, I unfortunately don't support your version, because not only as it stands it implies that Corbyn supports him because of his actions that you mention, but also the charges mentioned have nothing to do with antisemitism. BeŻet (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. There is no indication in these sources that Corbyn's support for Salah had anything to do with antisemitism, and including that specific allegation against him while ignoring others seems to be selective. The JC source – the only one which actually mentions Corbyn, as far as I can see – mentions the blood libel accusation alongside accusations of homophobia, but there is no indication that they believed this specific comment to be relevant to Corbyn's backing of him, which is what some past versions of this article have implied.

That being said, as I said before, I'm not against any inclusion of Salah at all. But it should accurately reflect the source and not hypothesise. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Blood libel is antisemitism, but that being said it should go into the chrono - 2010-15, or in his views on Israel/Palestine - not under antisemitism. It was a notable activity and it is still being mentioned. Inclusion of 2015-18 "attacks" over this may or may not be due - but that's a separate matter.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What Salah may or may not have been convicted of should go in his own article not here. RevertBob (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Salah's article already mentions his charges and is the appropriate location for this content, especially since it allows to describe them in more detail and mention any controversies around them. Including them here would be, with all due respect, a "tabloidisation" of the article. BeŻet (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Open letter in The Guardian re anti-Corbyn bias in the media

An editor recently added a Primary Source flag to the paragraph dealing with the open letter signed by 42 academics which appeared in The Guardian in April 2018. The editor asked if the open letter was notable. I initially thought it would be easy to find a secondary source to replace the link to the letter but in fact had some trouble finding one. That seems to be rather notable itself. It is mentioned at https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/forty-senior-academics-write-to-condemn-anti-corbyn-bias-in-media-coverage-of-the-antisemitism-debate/03/04/. I don't know much about The London Economic but do note that it is used as a reference elsewhere on Wikipedia and as far as I can tell is not regarded as non-RS. The open letter is referred to on 11 other Wikipedia pages. In addition it appears to be the only reference to anti-Corbyn media bias on the page. This topic has been the subject academic study and has been mentioned in the media. It is therefore a little surprising that no other mention of it appears on the Corbyn page. I think it would be worth keeping a reference to the letter for that reason as well as because it provides a perspective on the subject of anti-semitism that does not appear elsewhere in the section. Burrobert 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Administrative oversight urgently required

This has gotten way out of hand in the frenzy of editing the pros and cons of the imputed, suspected, implied, attributed 'antisemitism' of Corbyn. At a rough estimate his biography now has 20% of its coverage dedicated to Corbyn's views (all said to be related) on anti-Semitism, Israel, Jews and Palestine.

There is not a skerrick of evidence Corbyn has ever made an anti-Semite remark (unlike Richard Nixon or a dozen modern politicians I can think of -Jean-Marie Le Pen - a known antisemitic bigot and holocaust denier gets 14% and that is based on explicit recognized statements venomous prejudice). No statements can be adduced to that effect, but there is a huge commentary on whether a number of acts or remarks he made might imply that, secretly, he is an anti-Semite, and the paraphrase of this hectic press reportage has resulted in a fifth of the article obsessing over it, with numerous sister articles expanding the innuendoes.

Compare our wiki bio of the outstanding virulently lethal anti-Semite, the architect of the Holocaust, Hitler, and we get 9% of the content on this. Richard Nixon was deeply anti-Semitic: it is documented. No mention of it on his page. Jimmy Carter was widely suspected by Jewish organisations of being anti-Semitic during his presidency (nonsense, but the press at the time mentioned this) but (justly) there is no mention of this rumour mill on his wiki bio.

This is obviously a serious WP:BLP issue, and requires administrative oversight. The page has gone berserk out of all proportion, and editors who share this concern should raise the problem with an appropriate oversight committee. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree So what should be trimmed from the article? Suggestions? Garageland66 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reduce the section to a stub saying, "Pro-Israel groups have claimed Corbyn to be anti-semitic on the basis of his long relationship with controversial Palestinian leaders. [ref][ref][ref and so on] Corbyn has denied this allegation [ref][ref][ref][ref and so on]" Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, it has gone well beyond that. Large portions of UK Jewry believe Corbyn to be an existential threat.[23][24][25] He has also made remarks which are widely considered to have been directed towards British Jews.[26][27][28] The scope of coverage, which is what we use to gauge content in our articles is such that the Labour antisemitism crisis has become the leading issue in his 2015-present leadership role.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  He made comments directed toward British Zionists. The conflation of the jewish faith with the colonial Zionist movement is a standard rhetorical trick of pro-Israeli factions. I mean, a few years back they were angry because he had Seder dinner with a Jewish group that was anti-Zionist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  While you may be quoting the Corbynite party line (and certainly Corbyn's view is due on his own page - in addition to analysis by RS and experts) - this is not the way this has been covered in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would argue that a lot of the sources being used by Wikipedia are deeply unreliable with regard to left wing political figures. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Which sources in particular?Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  The Financial times to start with. But in general, let's just say that it's not at all uncommon for leftist politicians with a history of anti-bigotry action to face unfounded smears from political opponents that are picked up by breathless media. Which is why WP:SCANDAL holds BLP articles to a higher standard and why WP:NOTNEWS exists - though on political pages it's more noticed in the absence of adherence to it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Politicians of all stripes are under media scrutiny - just look at the recurring Trump dramas and coverage on wiki (and Trump would not be described as leftist nor, do I think, as having a history of anti-bigotry action) - it comes with the trade of politics. What's the reliability issue with the Financial Times? Which other sources should be avoided per your view? Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Honestly we should be avoiding anything even remotely an opinion piece as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Um....Wrong. When notable people make their opinions known in major media, we can mention or discuss their opinions on the page. Same for ex cathedra editorials in major media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Financial Times has very few opinion pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  You asked, what else, and rather than tendentiously swapping back and forth biased news sources I pointed to a category, which covers a large swath of "what else". Basically I'm tired of seeing people throwing POV into a politician's article which is not only counter-factual to his personal statements and voting history but also deliberately designed to smear him. He has spoken out, frequently and vociferously, about Israel. He has not done so about the Jewish religion. Trying to go from one to the other is POV pushing, even when assisted by the editorials of Tory newspapers and pro-Israeli advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Are RSes calling this a smear in their own voice (as opposed to quoting Labour spokepersons/supporters)? Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Like I'm getting a bit frustrated at your refusal to hear that repeatedly inserting sources calling somebody who can be reliably sourced as a founding member of an anti-fascist organization, in good-quality academic sources, a bigot is a smear of a sort covered under section 3 of WP:SCANDAL - like we have every reason to believe from his personal statements that he's not looking to exterminate anybody. But still the attacks make good press to the Brexit set, so they are news. And Wikipedia isn't a compendium of news stories - Isn't it more likely that this committed anti-fascist and anti-racist just doesn't like apartheid? Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion about Corbyn's record of antisemitic slurs, statements, activities and policy positions occupies a major portion of his page because it occupies a very large part of the public conversation about Corbyn in Britain. This is true even among Labour MPs and non-politician public figures long known for their support of Labour. We follow sources, and we do not trim articles to suit our personal political views.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  And so you continue to refuse to engage with the concerns over due coverage and slander that other editors have brought up. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Labour MP Frank Field resigned the Labour whip tonight, citing Corbyn's antisemitism [29] This is a Labour MP who was one of the nominators of Corbyn as party leader. These attempts here by editors to whitewash Corbyn's antisemitism as "smears" and "slanders" are sickening. I think reference to his antisemitism should be in the lead, it has become the most significant thing about him (but I am not going to try to edit this article, i have better things to do than engage in the sort of fights that would involve).Smeat75 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR is now active

Please note, the edit notices on this page that are 1RR restriction. There are now active discretionary sanctions on this page. Violation of WP:1RR may result in sanctions, including blocks, topic bans, and individual revert restrictions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn's distinction Between Anti-Semetism and anti-zionism / Corbyn's personal denial

1. Why was Corbyn's August 2018 acknowledgment that criticisms of Israel may stray into antisemitism but denied that all forms of anti-Zionism were inherently racist this edit removed, @ Latest revision as of 21:21, 30 August 2018 ... I dont see it repeating anything said clearly before in this article and for many it is a very relevant distinction. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

2. One could read this Antisemitism section and believe that Corbyn is himself antisemitic ... Corbyn's personal reply to the march 2016 accusation, is a clear & unequivocal reply, please I am not sure why it was removed. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In response to complaints that there was too much on the anti-Semitism stuff! Someone reverted, re-adding: 'He told the The Guardian that antisemitism was a "problem that Labour is working to overcome", acknowledging that some criticism of Israel may stray into antisemitism at times, but denied that all forms of anti-Zionism were inherently racist, and pledged to "root out antisemitism" within the party, which he described as a "poison"'; and 'Corbyn stated that he was "not an anti-Semite in any form" and that he challenges "anti-Semitism whenever it arises and no anti-Semitic remarks are done in my name or would ever be done in my name"'. There are obvious overlaps with what's already there: 'Corbyn agreed that factions of the Labour Party had issues with antisemitism, and acknowledged that there was work to be done for Labour to regain the trust of British Jews'; and 'Corbyn also stated that "People who dish out anti-Semitic poison need to understand: You do not do it in my name. You are not my supporters and have no place in our movement."' Keep the 'denied that all forms of anti-Zionism were inherently racist' if it really adds something... the rest is repetition. If we can't remove repetition of Corbyn defending himself, then it's not surprising that the section's so long or that people add repetitions of people accusing him. EddieHugh (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with what EddieHugh is saying here, as well as what he said in the edit summary at the time. Of course there needs to be some balance (and condensing/removal of content, for sure), but the parts which were removed were highly repetitive. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly EddieHugh thanks for accepting Corbyn's distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism which are not repeated in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC) ......( maybe i should not have put both points under the same heading sorry). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

While we certainly should present Corbyn's own stmts, we should not give them UNDUE weight - we should primarily be using what RSes say of Corbyn, particularly experts such as Lipstad.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be allowing words to be put in his mouth though. RevertBob (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSCANDAL

I think a lot of people here need to actually go and read point three at the wikilink in the header. Accusations from random academics an ocean away are basically the definition of scandal mongering. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It's especially relevant that some editors seem dedicated to making this into an article, "written purely to attack the reputation of another person," and these tendentious edits are becoming particularly galling as they intensify. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt is not a random academic - she is a reknowned expert on the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and antisemitism - precisely the sort of expert we want to include (as opposed to the Daily Mail vs. Morningstar and the like - re-reported elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking an historian who doesn't like him and claiming them to be notable is exactly what WP:NOTSCANDAL is pointing against. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The piece in the Atlantic - Jeremy Corbyn’s Ironically Ahistorical Anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt - was hardly cherrypicked by EMG - this was the sole and only topic. Lipstadt is an expert on antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. Which is being used expressly to insert into the article "corbyn is an anti semite" it's a clear violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Even a group within Corbyn's own party has made an official anti-Semitism complaint against him (see here): there's no shortage of people and groups saying the same thing. It's not scandal mongering to present some of them in this article: (going through NOTSCANDAL #3) it's not gossip (RS are used); avoiding libellous claims shouldn't be difficult; he has a right to privacy, but this is about a high-profile politician and his (mostly) public actions and comments; the article's not "purely to attack the reputation", but care is needed to keep it in proportion (NOTSCANDAL #2). EddieHugh (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue of proportionality is what needs to be considered here. I don't agree that this page should be whitewashed of all references to antisemitism, but do we really need to dedicate ~20% of this article to antisemitism and Israel-Palestine related issues? Especially considering that the page Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party already exists? --Bangalamania (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If the 'Wreathgate' article survives AfD, then a lot could be moved there from 'Israel and Palestine'. I've trimmed a bit of 'Allegations of antisemitism and responses', but a lot of the content is actually comments from Corbyn and his defenders: if the suggestion is that there's anti-Corbyn bias based on quantity, then further trimming of that section might not help, as it would reduce the Corbyn-defenders coverage. EddieHugh (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly what I want is for the anti-Corbyn crowd to stop trying to make his article about the scandal more than it already is - things like the Lipstadt insertion, which I still characterize as a blatant violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL being a chief example of such an attempt. Simonm223 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to include every accusation, we can get the gist that pro-Israeli groups say he's anti-semitic and pro-Palestinian groups say he's anti-racist and his emnity is not with the jewish faith but rather the state of Israel without making it section after section of accusations and counter-accusations. Simonm223 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lipstadt, an extremely distinguished historian and one of the world's leading experts on antisemitism, was not speaking as "a pro-Israel" voice. She was giving an expert, scholarly analysis of specific Corbyn statements as crossing the line separating anti-Zionist rhetoric from outright antisemitic speech, in a brief essay for a popular audience in The Atlantic, one of America's most respected magazines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lipstadt is making a deeply controversial claim and I'd challenge whether her expertise as an historian equates to being a mind reader able to discern a motive beyond the words Corbyn actually said. And that's at the root of all this. Corbyn has not made an openly anti-semitic remark in public. He has definitely made anti-zionist remarks; that's not disputed. But the efforts to conflate those two positions are not appropriate and shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a platform, for the reasons I've been over ad-nauseam. An attempt to turn a series of policy statements regarding Israel into "he just hates Jews" is precisely what WP:NOTSCANDAL is designed to prevent. That's the whole "higher standard" thing right there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lipstadt is not "just" an historian, but an expert on the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and antisemitism. Her published expert analysis, in a top notch publication, is a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Lipstadt is just the sort of expert on antisemitism and the Holocaust that this and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party needs, rather than the tabloid back-and-forth which had been causing a lot of edit wars recently. Obviously there are people who are bound to disagree, but like others have said, this isn't just the case of her being some random academic – NOTSCANDAL definitely does not apply here, imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anybody suggesting Corbyn has denied the holocaust? IS there any quote in which he's said anything of the sort? Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in reliable sources, no. But that's irrelevant here. Lipstadt's expertise isn't just in combating Holocaust denial. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What I'm arguing is that, as he isn't a perpetrator of, advocate for or denier of the holocaust, and as she's not a mind-reader and is, as such, inferring her personal opinion about statements that are not explicitly anti-semitic, she's not in fact an expert in Corbyn's motivation for his statements. Which makes this effectively rumour-mongering. An academic who doesn't know him and hasn't any significant contact with him made an assertion clouded by a skewed media depiction of him which may not have any basis in reality. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please take note Lipstadt is a BLP - and BLP policy applies to talk page comments as well. Corbyn's quotes are rather immaterial - that's OR of PRIMARY material. What we actually use is SECONDARY analysis, preferably by experts. Lipstadt is a preeminent expert in the field. So far in this discussion, no expert sources have been presented claiming Corbyn is not antisemitic - which is what is relevant for our discussion here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm putting the WP:STICK down as I've said my piece. I vehemently and forcefully disagree and I think this whole thing is galling. But I'm not going to fight over it any longer. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: Wreathgate has survived AfD, so some of the detail from 'Israel and Palestine' in the Corbyn article can be moved there. That should help to rebalance the article. EddieHugh (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I've started to trim the section here, and put it under its own subheading for readability. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Frank Field resignation

" A month ago Field lost a confidence vote in his constituency party, after siding with the Conservative government in Brexit votes." How is this relevant to Corbyn and anti-Semitism? Yes ir provides background on his resignation, but this is not the article on Field himself nor on Brexit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC) p.s. I also think he deserves to be described as a "veteran" MP, regardless of the vote of confidence.

It's highly relevant, because it gives the lie to how this is being widely reported.

The fact is that Frank Field had lost the support of his local party, after his support for Brexit. Field then turned this into a disloyal attack on Corbyn (who can hardly be said to have opposed Brexit either) on the grounds of anti-semitism. The anti-Corbyn press have picked that up and run with it. For a veteran MP to act in such a manner is disgusting. Somewhere (more than Private Eye, who will probably give a balanced version) needs to cover the whole story. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well OK, I guess it provides evidence that Field was really just waiting for an excuse to resign. It just seemed to me to be a bit more like footnote material. Under 1RR I guess I now have to wait 24 hours before re-adding the word "veteran"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Dear old Frank. 39 years is more than enough for anyone, surely?

Losing a constituents' confidence vote does not require an MP to resign the whip, so it's of peripheral relevance at best. A better response to include would be the unnamed Labour spokesperson, who commented that Field was looking for an excuse to do it. Field stated that the leadership's attitude towards anti-Semitism was a sufficient reason in itself for him to resign. We shouldn't insinuate in Wikipedia's voice (as in the present version) that he did it because of his constituents' vote. We're here to present what is "widely reported", not to spin it to what we think is "a balanced version". EddieHugh (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It was simply taken from the BBC's impartial report & analysis on the matter, there is a quote later on ~ Labour MP Chris Williamson told BBC Newsnight: "He's obviously lost the confidence of his members and he's now getting his excuses in, it seems to me, and throwing around grotesque slurs that have no basis in reality - and that is a very regrettable end to Frank's long career in the House of Commons." My intention was to provide relevant background context, which is near impossible when nearly all that is widely reported is not the same as NPOV. I admit I am an idealist. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well if we must include any reference to Field's resignation in the article (I'd be of the mind to cut completely as yet another WP:RECENTISM) then we should include the Chris Williamson quote as a rebuttal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not attributing it and positioning it after the info that he resigned hints to the reader that it is the real reason. The official statement – "Jeremy Corbyn thanks Frank Field for his service to the Labour Party" – is sufficient, as this is the Corbyn article. Any further details can be added to the dedicated Labour anti-Semitism article. (On recentism – there's far too much of it on Wikipedia, but that's the way things are. I've tried on other pages to cut details on the latest 'scandal' or opinion piece, but have been shot down. It's the norm, unfortunately. In 10 years, Corbyn & anti-Semitism will probably merit no more than a paragraph in any encyclopedia biography of him: an excellent reason to cut it to a paragraph now, but that's not how Wikipedia dynamics work.) EddieHugh (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to not mention Field's resignation on the Corbyn article at all. IF it must be included, and if Field's statement about Corbyn must stand in it, then the response from Chris Williamson, cited in the BBC, must also stand. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that it doesn't even appear at Frank Field (British politician), so I'm still a bit surprised that it's still here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I used my one revert for the last 24 hours on another EddieHugh edit or it wouldn't be. If someone else wants to remove all mention of Frank Fields from the Corbyn article I'd support that action. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Martinevans123 is referring to Williamson; Field's resignation and the anti-Semitism reason are mentioned in the lead on his article. There's huge coverage of Field's resignation, all linking it at least in part to Corbyn and anti-Semitism. It's hard to think of why it shouldn't be included: it's recent, but this is part of an unfolding saga; including it doesn't necessarily make it 'recentism' in a negative sense. If you're convinced removing it is right, please try to build a consensus. EddieHugh (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm doing. Although, as I said, while I think it should be expunged per WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE the only unacceptable solution is to include Field's remarks but not Williamson's rebuttal. That's straight up a violation of WP:NPOV they're both reported on in WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a matter of balance, yes. There are already two responses to the one sentence of Field's resignation; the second of which is problematic, as described above. Adding a third (from, to be rude to him, a nobody MP) would be tipping the balance too far. And we're also hoping/trying to reduce the volume of Israel–Anti-Semitism! EddieHugh (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to me further up WP:BLP applies to talk and calling Williamson a nobody MP could be seen as crossing a line. After all I was told I was crossing a line for calling somebody "not a mind reader". Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"minor"? "unimportant"? "not well known"? "backbench"? I think we're safe, although I thought that living on the edge would feel more exciting... EddieHugh (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Reducing the the volume of Israel–Anti-Semitism, should not be about reducing balance, if you are going to add content re: the facebook group and Field, please do expect it to be balanced with counter points. Williamson's quote is a relevant rebuttal. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is that there is balance already: 2 responses to 1 very short sentence. What's the justification for three rebuttals of one statement? As I said above, a lot of the volume of the Israel–Anti-Semitism sections is rebuttals: arguing for both a reduction in the Israel–Anti-Semitism volume and an increase in the rebuttals from 2 to 3 for 1 item in the Israel–Anti-Semitism parts is a bit contradictory. EddieHugh (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The first is not a rebuttal but an acknowledgment of Field's long service. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It maybe a short sentence but to accuse someone of being a "force for anti-Semitism in British politics" is a huge accusation and if the are rebuttals, they deserve to be heard on wikipedia ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

...it's the official Corbyn response. There's beauty in its ambiguity, but not many people are likely to read it as merely a long-service acknowledgement. We could add in Field's response – "He [Corbyn] seems to be under the impression that I have left a whist club rather than 60 years in the Labour party. I have actually been in the party longer than he has" – but that would exacerbate the length problem. EddieHugh (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Put in the third response if you think it's appropriate, but the contradiction I just mentioned will be worsened. EddieHugh (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact no, I didn't mean Williamson as such. I just meant this, i.e. mentioning now what happened a month ago, i.e. the reason I started this thread to begin with. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

News media reporting Field's resignation consider it important that he lost a confidence vote. Imagine if an MP who had backed Corbyn in his leadership bid had resigned over the same reasons. I am sure we would not be having the same discussion because most people distinguish between opposition from opponents and opposition from supporters. TFD (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Um... Field was one of the few Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn as a candidate for leader. See the list here. So Field's resignation is "opposition from supporters". EddieHugh (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes LOL so did Margaret Becket...crazy politicians, what the hell were they thinking ... neither were real supporters of Corbyn. I wonder if they regretted their nominations. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Field was at odds with Corbyn's more left wing socialism, and much of the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Field embraced more social conservative ideas ("faith, family and flag") associated with Blue Labour ~ (e.g. under the more centeralist previous labour leader ~ "Former Labour minister Frank Field hits out at Ed Miliband for being soft on immigration" [30] He is a member of the advisory board of Reform (think tank) and of the generally conservative but also "broad church" magazine Standpoint.

Field was a number of MPs who nominated Corbyn because they thought with his level of membership support he should be allowed to run. But otherwise he did not support him and said so. TFD (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. Lots of Labour MPs nominated Corbyn as they thought he should be part of the debate; they didn't actually want him to win the leadership contest. This has been reported in a number of RSes. Doesn't indicate support at all. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Working Definition of Antisemitism

Editors working on this page may also wish to contribute on Working Definition of Antisemitism which needs the scrutiny that this page gets. RevertBob (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)