Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Corbyn and antisemitism

I propose this as an abbreviated synthesis of the material we have. The statistics are as follows:

• The antisemitism section as it now stands has 1,463 words (9,683 characters)
• This alternative gets the same content down to 655 words (4,229 characters), and does so by adding a section on the IHRA definition controversy, effectively reducing our text by a third, and then expanding it to be more comprehensive.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This is one way to introduce the topic, and sum it up.

Corbyn’s outlook regarding Jews and his management of allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is the subject of strong controversy. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, and a number of papers, such as the Jewish Chronicle , have charged that Corbyn consistently sides with antisemites against Jews, Jewish News claiming that Corbyn’s management of the issue posed an "existential threat to Jewish life". Others within the community, such as Jewish Voice for Labourand 50 prominent Jewish activists have at different times variously dismissed the accusations, saying it falsifies the public record of Corbyn’s career-long opposition to racism, and that the innuendo reflects media bias. A September 2018 poll commissioned by The Jewish Chronicle found that 85.9% of British Jews and 39% of the British public believed Corbyn to be antisemitic. Party statistics about complaints of anti-Semitism in the ranks (April 2018-March 2019) indicate they relate to roughly 0.1% of the membership.

Corbyn was co-chair at a Holocaust Memorial week in 2010, when anti-Zionist Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer spoke against the misuse of the Holocaust for political ends and argued that Judaism had been usurped by a Holocaust religion. Corbyn later stated that, in pursuit of justice for Palestinians, he had on occasion shared platforms with persons whose views he rejected. Together with Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman he attended events commemorating the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians. These events had been organized by Jewish Holocaust denier Paul Eisen. When this detail emerged, Corbyn stated he had not been familiar with this aspect of Eisen's background at the time. When Mear One’s Freedom for Humanity mural depicting bankers was removed from an East London wall in 2012 Corbyn compared its removal to Nelson Rockefeller’s destruction of Diego Viera (sic)’s Man at the Crossroads when complaints were made it contained a portrait of Lenin. Its removal came after a complaint had been lodged asserting it was anti-Semitic.Deborah E. Lipstadt compared One's portrayal of Jewish bankers to imagery used by the 1930s anti-Semitic Der Stürmer In the ensuing controversy, Mear One stated it was about class and privilege and showed both White Anglo and Jewish bankers, denying it was antisemitic. Corbyn later apologized for failing to scrutinize the image, posted on Facebook, closely. The image was, in his view, indeed antisemitic.

In 2013, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom. Manuel Hassassian, said at an event "You know I'm reaching the conclusion that the Jews are the children of God ... because nobody is stopping Israel building its messianic dream of Eretz Israel." Commenting, Corbyn said that the ambassador had been "berated" by "Zionists" at the meeting who "don’t understand English irony". In August 2018, when challenged, Corbyn said that he had spoken to defend "the Palestinian ambassador in the face of what I thought were deliberate misrepresentations by people for whom English was a first language, when it isn't for the ambassador". He added that he had used "Zionist" in an "accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people" and that he would now be more careful using it because it had been "hijacked as code for Jews". Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called Corbyn's remarks "the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell's 1968 'rivers of blood' speech".

When the Labour Party adopted with four modifications the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s controversial Working Definition of Antisemitism, Corbyn and his party were strongly criticized for not reproducing it verbatim. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council said this ‘diluted’ the definition and suggested the Labour Party was failing to tackle antisemitism within its ranks. The issue led Margaret Hodge MP to tell Corbyn he was 'a fucking antisemite and a racist’. The Media Reform Coalition asserted that press and television coverage of the issue had consistently omitted crucial details, and ignored what they claim is an academic and legal consensus that the IHRA definition is flawed.

Most of the detail we have, Facebook etc., has nothing to do with Corbyn.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable summary to me. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't think that Corbyn being in Facebook groups containing antisemitic content has anything to do with Corbyn? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that Corbyn's name is continually and regularly associated with charges of, in relation to and/or denial of anti-semitism. To compare him with any other political figure (including Trump) in this regard is ludicrous. Debating the merits of widespread coverage in the mainstream media is a violation of wp:nor and doesn't belong here. Allegations of anti-semitic positions and associations comprise much more than a mere 20% of Corbyn's wp:notability so there is nothing wp:undue here at all.

In classic anti-Semitic literature, the name of any number of Jews is associated with charges of, in relation to and/or denial of any number of insidious accusations. We know that these charges were splashed over all sorts of polemical newspapers, with nudge-nudge/wink-wink suggestiveness, though having no basis in reality. If people are, as they should be, appalled by anti-Semitism, they should take a lesson on how it works, which is how racism generally works, not just with Jews. To be appalled by anti-Semitism logically obliges one to grew keen antennae for all hysterical fear-mongering innuendo targeting a person or groups for political ends. It is not some 'unique' process applied only to Jews.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"people associated with antisemitism are the real victims of antisemitism" is surely one of the hottest of takes. Vashti (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's true that it has a lot of coverage, but I don't think the bloated section we have right now is good at conveying the topic to the readers - it reads more like a bunch of Wikipedia editors on opposite sides dumped as much bloat as they could into it to try and reinforce their positions. Do you think that this proposed replacement is a good summary, though? By my reading it covers the key points, focuses on the most noteworthy or important events in the timeline, and removes or condenses a lot of the bloated stuff defending Corbyn, not just the stuff criticizing him, in favor of a broad summary that is honestly more useful to readers. The sort of nose-counting "X said Y" bloat that currently fills the section is a result of editors going back-and-forth to try and argue with each other by proxy - but it's not actually all that useful to readers. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the wording "When Mear One’s Freedom for Humanity mural depicting bankers was removed from an East London wall in 2012 after a complaint had been lodged asserting it was antisemitic, Corbyn compared its removal to Nelson Rockefeller’s destruction of Diego Viera (sic)’s Man at the Crossroads" as it totally misrepresents the situation, he asked why it was being removed, not defend it as such, if we are going to cover this it needs to be done in a precise way with the exact words spoken, not editorialised to fit a particular narrative. G-13114 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You made an assertion, but did not document why it 'totally misrepresents the situation'. Please do so, otherwise the alternative text cannot be tweaked, if that is necessary Nishidani

I did, because it erases the fact that he asked why it was being removed, that text gives an impression that he was fully aware of the nature of the content and was perfectly fine with it. G-13114 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

(I believe) Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest removing the word 'often' after Kaufman, as Corbyn said he attended 'a few meetings' of DYR and that has not been challenged. On the mural, I think it is important to convey from the start that Corbyn was unaware of the imputation of antisemitism, which is why he said 'Why?', and that he was responding to an image posted on Facebook by the artist, which was pretty small. Perhaps the section could start with his reaction to the post, then fill in the background. Jontel (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The efficient way to do this is to tweak the text. I took out 'often', for example. I thought the second point was dealt with, since I was aware of the importance of that order. Perhaps that can also be rewritten to make the sequence clearer. All we need do is be succinct. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I see your point about the article and am happy for you to change it as proposed. Jontel (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Very poor summary, leaving out major points of scandal (e.g. Corbyn at Tunisia, IHRA, mishandling of antisemitism in the part). Highly inaccurate - "existential threat to Jewish life" - was a joint editorial by all Jewish newspapers in the UK, not just Jewish News. The section overemphasizes FRINGE views - such as those of Mear One - the mural is seen by all media (and antisemitism experts) as antisemitic. A clearly inappropriate summary. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the page first. (a) Corbyn in Tunisia, is in a different section on the page than the one I am synthesizing. Above I noted that that section was defective, and am waiting for input. (b) The IHRA issue is not in that section or on the page. I can hardly synthesize what doesn't exist, let alone bee held responsible for the lacuna. Okay. I'll add it to my proposed version. (c) You should have written, if you are committed to NPOV, Corbyn's putative mishandling of antisemitism. (d) 'existential threat to Jewish life', a source cited on the page has Ferrer claiming he wrote that personally, and therefore your assertion it was a 'joint editorial' is counterfactual or at least conflicts with an RS (Der Spiegel). (c) If Mear One is 'fringe', then why is it on the page? We have Corbyn's first reaction to a small reproduction of the image on Facebook, later corrected when it became the object of a media frenzy. Per BLP, if Mear One's image is asserted to be anti-Semitic (I think it is) he nonetheless, when it is mentioned, has a due right to have his statement about it mentioned. Youy can't have it both ways: use the Mear One incident as non-fringe, while expunging anything Mear One says as fringe.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The assertion that "the mural is seen by all media as antisemitic" is demonstrably incorrect. This Haaretz piece reports neutrally, avoiding taking a position. Even this 2015 article by Marcus Dysch in the Jewish Chronicle avoids taking a position (notice that the article says that the central figures portrayed are "a group of businessmen and bankers sitting around a Monopoly-style board and counting money" without describing them as Jewish). This Times article takes a neutral position even though it doesn't seem to know that Rockefeller and Morgan weren't Jewish. Moving away from the conventional media, Jonathan Cook, a reasonably significant writer, includes the mural controversy in his criticism of the campaign against Corbyn. On the Architects For Social Housing Blog, there is a considered piece about the controversy. Finally, there is an article in the Morning Star a tiny-circulation and the only pro-Corbyn newspaper, which seems to have been accepted as a reliable source here, which criticises the contention that the mural is antisemitic. Most of the preceding describe Okerman's defence of the mural against charges of antisemitism on the grounds that it portrays real people, most of whom were not Jewish, rather than antisemitic stereotypes. To describe the artist's defence as a fringe view is bizarre.     ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. The fact that some media chose in some reporting not to take a position does not imply they lack a position (taken subsequently - for some of the outlets your mentioned) or that they examined the merits of the claims - it merely means they haven't examined the merits of the facts in that particular piece and therefore report in an attributed fashion (or just plain ol' ass covering). With the possible exception of the Morning Star (a fringe communist party organized newspaper) all WP:RSes who have taken a position have stated the mural is antisemitic - this includes both media (of a much higher caliber than the Morning Star) and experts such as Lipstadt. Not only that, Corbyn himself has admitted this is "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic"[1]. There is no significant disagreement of the nature of the mural. That some of the hook-nosed bankers are allegedly intended to be portrayals of non-Jews is immaterial (and mostly ignored by RSes) - the nature of the imagery itself is clear. The opinions of the painter of this odious painting are WP:FRINGE - and of little consequence in this page. Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For information: The artist was portraying five powerful bankers and industrialists in the early twentieth century (and Aleister Crowley). He portrayed three individual gentiles: Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie. As "Jewish banking houses were instrumental to the process of capital formation in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century", History of investment banking in the United States, he could hardly omit the Rothschild and Warburg Jewish banking families. I do not know whether he was trying to depict an individual from each of these families: as they were banking families and each had a number of leading professionals at the time, perhaps he just tried to communicate that they were Jewish. He was painting a complex design outdoors onto a wall up a ladder with people passing and asking him questions and in just three days, it must have been challenging. Jontel (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no significant disagreement of the nature of the mural.

Icewhiz, that is blatantly counterfactual. What a painting or mural or any piece of art 'means' is, in good part, conjectural. We have a mural, which immediately was objected to by someone or some body as anti-Semitic and thereupon expunged, and then a fishing-for-incriminating bait-newspaper frenzy which more or less in GB implied there was no doubt. Corbyn himself, examining it closer up, in this polemical atmosphere, agreed. (I too looking at the small reproduction and concentrating on the noses, tended to agree) On the other hand, some newspapers and an extended essay analyzing the mural, are either neutral regarding the claim, or rebuff it as a caricature of a much more complex work, in that 3 of the 5 figures depicted were not Jews. It is no use your insisting that it is objectively anti-Semitic, since per NPOV and RS, that is undetermined. We already have in the synthesis Corbyn's view that on closer inspection it struck him as anti-Semitic, and the painter's assertion that it's not about Jews but about the moneyed class and privilege. The only responsible thing to do is to describe the incident, (a) mural (b) protest (c) newspaper furore (d)Corbyn's retraction (e)Mear One's assertion, and an independent source analyzing the painting in some detail. We don't make up readers' minds on the 'truth': we laconically outline the data, and provide sources that help the curious reader follow things up to make their own minds up. It's called WP:NPOV, and is fundamental policy. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And one might add that your edit summary warranting the restoration of Deborah Lipstadt (to which however I have no objection) was silly. I.e.

scholarship on antisemitism is not partisan

Lipstadt's views on many issues in this area are indeed partisan, extremely so, and contested by scholars of equal standing.

Norman G. Finkelstein The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, 2003 978-1-859-84488-5 pp.68-71 Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mear One is fringe - and is irrelevant on Corbyn's page. Lipstadt is published scholarship. Whether the hook nosed figures were intended to be in part non-Jewish is immaterial - per coverage in RSes that focus on the trope nature of the painting.Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself while ignoring the objections raised to your obiter dicta. Please don't keep repeating yourself while ignoring intervening comments. It's a boring display of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. By the way, in removing Bob Pitt's article while leaving in place several other blogs used in the article, you are being inconsistent. If you are opposed to blogs, then removed the lot: don't single one out, since that looks like the selective application of a principle. I don't know if you read Pitt's piece, but it is a well-argued analysis, against supporters of Mear One's mural, that it was indeed anti-Semitic. He provides documentation showing Mear drew on an anti-Semitic source. Few of the airheads who write columns for mainstream newespapers, for or against, seem to have done their homework, unlike Pitt. Accepting trash reportage by people writing to a daily deadline as the basis for our sourcing (some of it unchallenged blogs), while excluding one blog formatted article by a former researcher for London's mayor Ken Livingstone, shows execrably poor judgement. I'll take it to the RSN board.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the only other blog source in the article, which was used for Corbyn's voting record, and replaced it with an RS. I don't think you will have much success at the RSN board. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS, blogs should not be used on BLPs (nor should they generally be used elsewhere). If there are other blogs in the article - they should be removed as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The blog is not being used for delicate information about a living person. It is being used to document the background textual sourcing for the images in a mural. I've taken this to RSN here.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Lipstadt's dubious conclusions, which I have noticed in other articles, are irrelevant here. Corbyn obviously didn't look closely at a tiny image on a Facebook post on his mobile phone about which he had no reason to be concerned. Taking an expert in antisemitism, giving her a full screen image, telling her it is antisemitic and giving her as much time as she needs to confirm this does not mean anything. It is more significant that some uncommitted people at the time did question the mural, though even that is not really proof of anything. The absence of common sense here is an indication of what a frame up this is, starting with someone searching through years of Corbyn's social media posts and carrying through to Berger's multimedia interrogations of him and then misrepresentation and faux outrage from various quarters.Jontel (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OR on image size, and personal opinions are irrelevant. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Jontel, you keep saying that Corbyn viewed the mural on a mobile phone - do we have any evidence of this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Jontel probably got that from an excellent source, where however it is a supposition, not a fact. I.e.

unlike Corbyn, who arrived at his own initial judgement about the mural on the basis of a Facebook post probably viewed on his mobile phone, Lips/Toube had been to see the mural in situ (Bob Pitt 'Antisemitism, the Brick Lane mural and the stitch-up of Jeremy Corbyn,' Medium 31 May 2018·)

By the way Israel National News is a settler extremist newsrag which should never be used for sourcing facts. It promotes conspiracy theories (Obama's whitehouse in the hands of Muslim extremists etc)and theorists and journalists hacks fired from mainstream newspapers for plagiarizing their material (Giulio Meotti). Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Arutz7 does not promote conspiracy theories. In the West Bank it is a mainstream source (contrast with Hakol Hayehudi which aligns with the hilltop youth).Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You have no credibility on these calls. Arutz Sheva dishes out this, and this andthis kind of tripe in its reportage. That for you is 'mainstream'. Yet when Israeli liberals are bombed or stabbed by settler fanatics, you called the former 'fringe people' on the left of radical leftists. So, with that kind of POV, your remarks on mainstream are not serious, in Wikipedia policy terms.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure reporting on Madonna's description of Obama (widely reported elsewhere) as a black Muslim makes it fringe. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To be precise - I said mainstream in the West Bank - representing a significant amount of people there. Madonna's comments were widely covered, Salam Al Marayati has been covered elsewhere, and Obama's IRS policy was a hotbutton topic back in the day (and it seems Arutz7 reprinted something that appeared in the Wall Street Journal). Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

'Mainstream in the West Bank' is a ghost category, devoid of meaning. What RS describes it as such? None. It is like saying The Morning Star is mainstream on the British communist left, or that the Drudge Report is mainstream on the American right. Meaninglessly tendentious abuse of 'mainstream'. If what AS reports comes from mainstream journals, then one doesn't source anything to it as a derivative screed, but to the mainstream source. Every serious editor knows this.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering the Jewish community in the West Bank is rather sizeable, there is some meaning. However, I am glad we agree on the fringe nature of Morning Star. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Again you are misreading. I did not say the Morning Star is fringe. It is a perfectly respectable source for the views of British communists, who are by definition not mainstream. Idem Arutz Sheva is a source for the views of a significant no. of settlers, but but they are not mainstream Israelis and their views are not, unless otherwise identified in mainstream sources, mainstream.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Elmer piece. As one of the editors of the Jewish nose I naturally read it with this caricature in mind. While I still worry about it, Elmer's intelligent analysis makes me less certain, esp as I know nothing about the muralist in question. I've introduced it. Encyclopedic content must always strive where possible to replace the 24/7 newscycle sourcing with sources that show a comprehensive and careful overview.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Construing English intelligibly

this sentence makes it seem that it is 100% that Corbyn is being smeared and not an opinion

These allegations have been challenged as part of a relentless campaign smearing Corbyn because of his views on the Middle East.

That, SJ, is a complete misreading. It is obvious that the run of the text preceding my adjustment displays one unilateral and selective POV summary of the text on the anti-Semitic accusations. It stands (poor English by the way 'criticized in relation to allegations' is thoroughly dumb)

Corbyn has been criticised in relation to allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party and for alleged antisemitic associations prior to becoming leader. Corbyn has apologised and asserted his record of opposing antisemitism and his commitment to rooting it out in the party.

Meaning. Corbyn has been criticized on the issue of anti-Semitism. He apologized, and promised to be a good chap on this in the future.Really! The article under several headings gave the allegation and responses, many critical of the allegations. In violation of WP:Lede, the lead as it stood only gave the allegations, the apology and a mention he'd pull his socks up apropos. No mention of the significant rebuttal or rejection of those charges. My edit balanced the POVs. 'challenged as (being) part of a smear campaign' does not mean the challenge is the truth. The challenge to the allegations means, in simple English, cannot be a fact, as you assert, but merely registers that numerous people do not accept those allegations. This is required per NPOV, and WP:Lede.Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Views on Corbyn" subsection

One easier way to trim down the antisemitism section would to remove this subsection. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that just removing that and leaving everything above it is workable at all. That subsection could stand to be condensed, but the section as a whole needs to focus on summarizing broad views on the entire topic rather than blow-by-blow over individual events (many of which have little to no sustained coverage), and a lot of the content there - which serves to convey how sources have addressed the entire topic of the section, rather than the minutiae of breaking news events we devote excessive sections to above - is the kind of thing we ought to make the primary focus of the section. Condensed, of course, into a broad summary rather than these excessive "X said Y" things, but overall we should be focusing on "here's a paragraph or two for key points and events, here's a paragraph on the overall takeaway among the sources" or something to that nature. Removing that section and keeping the mess of a timeline above it would effectively turn the section into an excessive wall of past breaking news events with no real comprehensive context or summary to make it readable. Like I said above, we should start with the proposed rewrite (which achieves most of those goals) and go from there, adding or removing sentences (rather than the current massive unreadable sections) for aspects people feel are essential to address. --Aquillion (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this section should be condensed as part of an overall review of the AS section. Jontel (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Apropos AbsolutelyPureMilk's revert

here You say I need a consensus. Well

• On March 6th I posted on this talk page an alternative version which fixes the WP:Undue violation.
• Today is the 18th. In the intervening twelve days, I made at least two adjustments to answer comments on the talk page.
  • Aquillion said it was fine by him.
  • G-13114 raised an objection I met.
  • Jontel raised one small objection, which I accepted by adjusting, after which he accepted my proposed text
  • Icewhiz objected.
  • ZScarpia answered one of Icewhiz's major objections. That doesn't mean a yes vote, but at the same time, ZScarpia raised no objection to the alternative offered.
  • Absolutelypuremilk made two comments, not focused on the proposal. One objection was a source Bob Pitt. I catered to this by removing the Bob Pitt reference.

So what does this add up to. Almost two weeks to post objections, and only Icewhiz complained, while you yourself made a specific objection I met. Of the remainder, three (excluding myself) either accepted the draft, or raised one small objection which I answered by fixing the problem noted. A fourth was not opposed to the draft. So my edit, with these modifications accepted, met the usual criteria for consensus.Only Icewhiz objected to its use. You did not. That means a majority of at least 3, and probably five, as opposed to 1/2. That is why your edit summary is deceptive. Editors had 12 days to reject my proposal, and only a small minority expressed dissent.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add my voice to the opposition. I don't think 5 editors is enough to make such a huge change. I'll start an RfC and we can see what others think. I'm open to removing the "Views on Corbyn" section entirely by the way, but I think this should be discussed fully before making the change. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, what Wikipedia policy says a major change, given 12 days to be vetted, and meeting with only 2 objections out of 6 people commenting (i.e. 2 of 7 editors) means consensus has not been met and an RfC is required? Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been a semi wiki break, Nishidani's much briefer rewrite of this over sized section is what this article has needed. I think it cuts more from the defense than allegations but I fully support. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to several tone and factual issues, promotion of fringe viewpoints (Mear One) - the change used non-reliable sources - e.g. architectsforsocialhousing.wpcomstaging.com - not suitable for BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Name the 'several tone and factual issues. It is remarkable how, while the unsatisfactory nature of the text we have is acknowledged by all, any attempt to revise it is reverted, and requests for input are basically ignored for some two weeks, only for vague complaints to emerge when it is, per a majority of okays, put in as a provisory substitute.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The (current) text is a compromise, which is why everyone thinks it is unsatisfactory, (but in different ways) - removing the involvement of Corbyn in antisemitic Facebook groups and the fact that Eisen's Holocaust denial was well-known might be a change, but it doesn't mean that it is an improvement! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Everyone? ah I see 2 editors equals everyone ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For reference, I clarified my comment above. As Nishidani said, everyone agrees that the current text needs improvement, they just disagree about how to do it (often in opposite directions!) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So everyone agrees? Well, do something if you dislike my summary of that unsatisfactory text, i.e. provide your own summary, and propose it. Kibitzing is tedious.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we refer to Paul Eisen as someone accused of Holocaust denial or a Holocaust denier?

The article currently says Eisen has been accused of Holocaust denial, but the sources (and Corbyn) don't give any indication he has denied being a Holocaust denier, and indeed wrote an article confirming that he was. I will change the description if there are no objections? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure even Eisen contests this (e.g. [2][[3] state he's self-proclaimed as such) - however what matters is RSes, and they use Holocaust denier without qualifications - e.g. JC, Telegraph, or this Routledge book on Holocaust denial. We can use this without qualifications (plain "Holocaust denier"). Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that he does reject the prevailing narrative. However, as it is reductive to sum up someone on one characteristic, and as he has not presented himself as an expert but as one who sympathises with revisionists, it would be less demonizing to say e.g. who challenges the prevailing account of the Holocaust. That is more nuanced but closer to the truth. Jontel (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be WP:PROFRINGE, and not in line with how RSes describe this individual - you have a bona-fida source using this language? Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is reductive and insulting to define someone solely by his personal views on a single issue, so hardly WP:BLP. Rather, it is a method of demonization. Instead say he countenanced HD or endorsed HD or something similar. It has broadly the same meaning but shows WP:NPOV. It does not mean that his fringe views are accepted by the article. There are few non partisan RS for a minor figure. Moreover, while we might rely on RS for the facts, we need not use their terms. Jontel (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources please. A RS using he language you are suggesting. I've presented several sources using "Holocaust denier" - unless you have sources using such language - the argument is irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the JC "its founder Paul Eisen promoted Holocaust denial." [[4]] Jontel (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be the only source (that I can find from a quick search at least) describing him as such. As well as the articles IceWhiz posted, the following sources refer to him as a Holocaust denier NYT, Electronic Intifada, Jerusalem Post and Jewish News, which says "Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon, numerous other Holocaust Deniers". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I accept that that is the prevailing description but do not accept that it is fair or accurate. "Holocaust sceptic" would be more accurate, "who has expressed scepticism about aspects of the Holocaust orthodoxy" would be fairer. However, I can see that the mainstream have chosen to disregard such niceties. Jontel (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think such an accusation should be made in the Wiki voice, we should treat claims here carefully. RevertBob (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that is how he describes himself, I'm not sure it is an accusation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

He is being ironic, as he is not a Holocaust historian. He is principally criticising what he sees as an overly high focus on the Holocaust akin to a religion. His critics are somewhat proving his point by treating him as a heretic. He seems to be only in Wikipedia because Corbyn attended a couple of his memorial meetings about a massacre of Palestinians, which is neither about the Holocaust nor antisemitism. Omitting the passage would solve the problem. Jontel (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The Deir Yassin event is highly relevant to the subject, its related to the major controversy that currently surrounds him and is mentioned by many reliable sources. Its clear from these reliable sources that they describe Eisen as a Holocaust Denier. Its not really up for debate that he is someone who denies the Holocaust, the reliable sources make it clear and you can read his writings yourself. He promotes the standard Holocaust theory that most Internet Nazis adhere to today, that the deaths of Jews in concentration camps was due to allied bombing and Typhus:

"Whatever conditions might have been in the German camps throughout the war, by 1945 and the final defeat of Germany the system, and particularly the camp system, had collapsed and conditions were catastrophic and it was the results of this collapse which the western armies came across. The Americans and the British saw these things, and, most critically, filmed and photographed them, as clear evidence of a planned genocide, rather than what they were: the result, particularly in the form of typhus epidemics, of a breakdown of Germany generally and the camp system in particular, under the onslaught of the allied saturation bombing. "

To refer to him as anything other than a Holocaust denier would be both rejecting the reliable sources and rejecting reality. SWL36 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to spend the time going through his writings. We could say what is uncontrovertible: that "he is widely described as a Holocaust denier". I don't think I have anything more to add to this. Jontel (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case even self described. To describe him as anything else than "Holocaust Denier", when this is the way sources describe him, would be WP:PROFRINGE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we include a comment from Jonathan Cook in the lede?

Bodney has re-added the following to the lede (referring to allegations of antisemitism):

These allegations have also been challenged as part of a relentless campaign smearing Corbyn because of his views on the Middle East.

This follows the sentence "Corbyn has apologised and asserted his record of opposing antisemitism and his commitment to rooting it out in the party.", so I don't think it's fair to say that there isn't a defence there, and furthermore it certainly isn't written neutrally. In any case, given how crowded the article is, we should only include things which have multiple decent sources in the main body, let alone in the lede. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

An apology is not really a defense, some readers might believe because Corbyn apologies he must be guilty. If accusations of racism are going to be in the lede, let the be fair defense too. Regards the defense another decent source is The chimera of British anti-Semitism (and how not to fight it if it were real) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The defence that "it's a smear campaign" is coming from fringe sources and is contradicted by most reliable sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The author is a pro-Palestinian activist. The reporting outlet - Middle East Eye is a WP:FRINGE Qatari funded website linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.[5][6][7] Most certainly not a RS for fact, a BLP violation on a BLP article, and UNDUE given the fringe nature of the source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A farcical example of IDONTLIKEIT. There is not a shadow of doubt that Cook passes any standard RSN noticeboard test. Jonathan Cook, as an English journalist, not 'activist'. with a degree in Middle Eastern Studies from SOAS, has several published books to his credit, has won awards for his journalism and has acknowledged expertise on the I/P area. The rumour mill about Middle East Eye's finances came from UAE/Saudi Arabian sources. It's run by David Hearst, who like Coiok once worked for the Guardian. What Cook stated can be found in any number of sources (yeah, reverting before actually looking at the content and finding if it can be alternatively sourced is a signature of POV pushing)

it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that Labour has an anti-Semitism problem while also pointing out that these particular media outlets have weaponized anti-Semitism to try and smear and discredit Corbyn.' Mehdi Hasan, 'Dial Down the Hysteria on anti-Semitism in Corbyn's Labour,' Haaretz 1 August 2018

f you are unhappy with the fact that the anti-Semitic allegations are often challenged and keep taking out such balancing sentences, then go to RSN and make your case. Don't just lazily revert and wave meaningless policy flags (WP:Undue for one sentence, really?)Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid belittling the victims of antisemitism. At one time for the Guardian - no more. Not a RS. And one sentence - the last on in the lede - containing a highly POV (and poorly sourced) assertion which does not conform with mainstream coverage - is a rather big deal. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

'Belittling the victims of antisemitism'? Where in the fuck, what magician's hat did you fish that one from. Please do not repeat your views. Analyse closely what is said, don't pull the 'reply' trigger within instants of speed-reading a comment.

This is ridiculous. You keep on harping on mainstream coverage as if Wikipedia merely recycled what corporate newspapers report. No one believes that. What you are doing is cancelling anything you dislike on 'mainstream reportage inadequacy' without glancing at thed actual practice of this page, i.e. which has a very significant use of non-mainstream sources. Wikipedia as you should know, is not about 'mainstream coverage', otherwise we would have no extensive citations from the Islington Gazette, the Shropshire Star, the Eastern Daily Press, the Morning Star, the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, Wales Online, The Glasgow Herald, www.newsletter.co.uk., Jewish Chronicle,Revolts (a personal research blog), Jacobin, The Free Lance-Star (really? a provincial newspaper in Fredericksburg, Virginia is reliable and Jonathan Cook is not?), Business Insider UK, Full Fact, Weekly Worker, The Herald (Glasgow) (circulation 28,000), Catholic Herald (London parish newspaper with 21,000 distributed copies), PoliticsHome.com, a right wing blog,Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Press Gazette (circulation 2,000), Balkan Insight, Tamil Guardian, Deccan Chronicle, Colombo Telegraph, La Patilla, (a Venezuelan website), Infobae (Argentinian website), Telesur (Venezuelan TV channel), Firat News Agency,Rudaw Media Network,The Sun,Mirror Online,Camden New Journal,All Party Cycling org.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally follows "mainstream coverage as if Wikipedia merely recycled what corporate newspapers report" for NPOV. The Telesur ref should be removed as well, as it is a BLP vio such a source. One fringe source does not excuse another. Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Icewhiz. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a a place for predictable lockstep voting, SJ. Icewhiz made a claim that Jonathan Cook is not RS (he's cited all over Wikipedia IP articles and no one has rooted him out or fussed until here), simply because he chose to publish in Middle East Eye which, though occasionally contested, is often used. Icewhiz has an opinion, he does not above have a policy-based argument. Merely asserting one's opinion is not adequate.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please try to AGF, lockstep is close to a PA. I could ask you how you found your way to Corbyn when you usually don't edit anything related to politics and suddenly, wham, here you are. But I won't. I wrote I concur with Icewhiz because I don't need to rehash all the arguments. We don't need to include fringe arguments in the lead. Saying that Corbyn is a victim of a smear campaign is fringe, idiotic and insulting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The MEE does not have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, nor neutrality (it does have a reputation for publishing highly slanted viewpoints). It is generally not used as a source on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of providing attributed statements/viewpoints of Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood figures when such attributed viewpoints are relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede should be brief but Bodney identifies an important omission. How about: "Corbyn's association with pro Palestinian campaigners expressing antisemitic views, prior to his becoming leader, and his handling of allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, have been the subject of much comment. Corbyn has regretted any offence caused by these associations and asserted his commitment to challenging antisemitism. His supporters have said that his support for Palestinian rights underlies much of the criticism of him." Jontel (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, though its not just his supporters who say that his support for Palestinian rights underlies much of the criticism of him. If the is an big unproven accusation in the lede, and the charge of alleged antisemitism is pretty huge and damning, then we should also balance it fairly with the other-side of the argument too.

It was Nishidani who first identified the lede's basic NPOV omission. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of some of those associations: Electronic Intifada - Asa Winstanley - 4 reasons the “anti-Semitism” attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are dishonest, 19 August 2015.     ←   ZScarpia   09:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede does not say that Corbyn is antisemitic, it says that multiple sources have raised concerns about his associations with antisemitism, which is indeed what reliable sources say. They (on the whole) do not say that the criticism is a response to his views on Palestine, and therefore we shouldn't include a sentence about what his supporters think, which is bound to be POV by its very nature. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Lead is supposed, of course, to summarise the body of the article. It shouldn't be necessary to include citations there because that should have already be done for the material lower down in the article which is being summarised. Viewpoints on the Labour antisemitism controversy will tend to be highly polarised and depend on where observers sit on the political spectrum and their attitudes towards the situation in the Middle East. Most conventional news sources will tend to be to the right of Jeremy Corbyn politically and that is reflected in the fact that the Morning Post is the only conventional news-source, albeit one with a tiny circulation, which takes a position supportive of Corbyn and the Labour left. However, those on the far left and those with pro-Palestinian attitudes will tend to view the controvery as a smear campaign and a witchhunt. Those holding that viewpoint may be a minority, but to write it off as a Fringe view is silly. That viewpoint tends to be expressed in sites such as Sqwawkbox, Mondoweiss, the Electronic Indifada, Middle East Monitor, Middle East Eye, +972 etc. The section title above is misleading: what was included was a statement cited to a piece by Jonathan Cook, not a comment by him as such. Jonathan Cook is one of the major writers contributing from that point of view. He is the author of three books on the Middle East which are as significant as most and whose journalism is published in the places mentioned here. Above it is asserted that the Middle East Eye is fringe and that it "does not have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, nor neutrality (it does have a reputation for publishing highly slanted viewpoints)". All of that is in the eye of the beholder of course. Devotees of a particular source are bound to think that it is a conduit of the truth while ones which clash with a persnal viewpoint are purveyors of lies and propaganda. Outside academic publications, approaches to fact checking really have be taken on trust. The charge of being fringe is a bit ironic when the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News which are targeted at less than 0.5% of the UK population are being pushed as highly reliable sources.     ←   ZScarpia   21:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• compromise - we will place Cook's attribited opinion, and right next to it we will state Corbyn poses an "existential threat" to UK Jews,[8][9] with 40% of UK Jews considering fleeing the UK if he is elected.[10].Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not a compromise. You are suggesting that Cook has an opinion whereas the 'exiustential threat' is a fact. It is not a compromise also in so far as if you attribute to Cook that view, then you have to attribute the existential threat phrase to Richard Ferrer, with something like the phrasing, 'According to Jewish News’s chief editor Richard Ferrer, Corbyn is an existential threat to British Jews, a view endorsed by two other British Jewish newspapers.' I.e. that would work out as follows:

Corbyn has been criticised in relation to allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party for alleged antisemitic associations prior to becoming leader. These allegations have been challenged by Jonathan Cook as reflecting a relentless campaign smearing Corbyn because of his views on the Middle East. Jewish News 's Richard Ferrer, seconded by two other Jewish newspapers in Britain accused Corbyn of being an ‘existential threat to British Jews’.

That is what is called creating a sandwich effect. I.e. you have only one side of the story as the text stands, namely Corbyn is subject to anti-Semitic allegations, and apologized (nudgenudge winkwink, he's somewhat guilty. (b) This was balanced by adding the pro-Corbyn defense, with parity obtained. With (c) you then destabilizethe achieved balance in clauses by wrapping up the snippet in between with a counter statement that reinforces (a) with the ballistic hyperbole (it still makes me chuckle for its paranoid lunacy) that British Jews consider him an existential threat, thus dismissing what Cooks personal view is by claiming all British Jews disagree. This is not how NPOV works.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, attributing to Richard Ferrer is incorrect (and a problem with your various suggestions elsewhere). Per external coverage - According to three most prominent Jewish newspapers in the UK: Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News, and Jewish Telegraph "A government led by Jeremy Corbyn would pose an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK" Guardian, NYT, Wapo, BBC. I suspect we even need to attribute wider than the 3 newspapers (as I think this was endorsed by the Jewish community in the UK) - however we can start with correct attribution here - this is a full-page front page statement of all 3 newspapers (under the banner "United we Stand" - you can see all 3 at BBC - and all 3 have the logos of all 3). Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh - and I might note - the joint editorial was covered by all major English speaking news outlets in the US, UK, and Israel. It was also covered widely in non-English media throughout the world - a tad more DUE than Cook at MEE who hasn't made quite a splash beyond this fringey website. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is not mine. It is your incoherence or inconsistency from edit to edit, depending o n what POV is at stake. Sometime ago you wrote:

Both NYT and Der Spiegel are much better than UK sources - UK sources all have a dog in the political fight here - whereas premier international sources (which NYT and DS are) - are better for NPOV.

Since you trumpeted as a superior NPOV source to British newspapers, I felt confident in citing it precisely on this issue by quoting.

Richard Ferrer, 47, is the editor-in-chief of Jewish News, a periodical with a circulation of 25,000. Outside of London, hardly anybody had heard of the free weekly until recently, but that quickly changed at the end of July. Together with two other Jewish newspapers, the Jewish News published an unprecedented warning on its front page, an op-ed that claimed that Corbyn represents an "existential threat" to the Jewish community in Britain. The sentence came from Ferrer's pen. "It was necessary," he says

Whaddya do? Ah, hang on, backtrack, bin memories of what you said earlier, pretend there's something flawed in my approach, and assert

attributing to Richard Ferrer is incorrect (and a problem with your various suggestions elsewhere).' Why? Because 'to three most prominent Jewish newspapers in the UK: Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News, and Jewish Telegraph "A government led by Jeremy Corbyn would pose an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK.'

How silly. Der Spiegel for this is better than UK papers, you assert when it is convenient. But if any one then cites from Der Spiegel a sentence or two you may dislike, you say with an unembarrassed volte-fa(r)ce British Jewish newspapers and The Guardian are more important sources than Der Spiegel. Worse, everything you add about the 3 Jewish newspapers is quoted in Der Spiegel just as I used it, only Ferrer's name as author is erased. Go figure. Stop wasting our time. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You are confused, I'm afraid, as I am citing not Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle, and Jewish Telegraph - but very wide coverage of their joint statement - in the likes of Washington Post and The New York Times. What makes these lede worth - is the very wide international coverage of the stmt. And yes - Washington Post and The New York Times are, as Der Spiegel, better for this issue than internal UK papers. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Me confused? Digging through what wiki policy sheet did you derive the absurd contention that reporting on British politics, certainly for this one item, widely reported in the Times and Guardian, is best sourced to United States or German newspapers? Wikipedia is farcical enough without further egging the nonsensical pud. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. And we are dealing here with antisemitism in the UK, not politics per se. Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cripes! What's that got to do with the price of wiki fish? Are you seriously stating that WP:NPOV mandates the citation of American newspapers when we deal with the intricacies of British anti-Semitism? What on earth is that supposed to mean, if it means anything?Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In response to an invitation to participate in comment, my time at present is unfortunately too limited as to read and research all the extensive good faith comments above. However, I think this article might contribute in part to the discourse on the subject: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/after-criticism-corbyn-regrets-defending-anti-semitic-london-mural-1.5938514 Activist (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands

The "Parliamentary groups and activism" section mentions that Corbyn had been the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands. In fact, it seems that he was also, in 2008, the group's founder[11]. Andrew Rosindell took over as chair in 2010.[12] The Chagos Islsnds have been in the news recently because of an opinion given out by the International Court of Justice that they were illegally separated from Mauritius by the UK when Mauritius gained independence in the 60s. In the early 70s the UK cleared the inhabitants in order to make way for the creation of a US military base. It is reported that part of the UKs motivation was a reduction in the cost of aquiring Polaris nuclear missiles.[13][14][15][16][17][18]     ←   ZScarpia   20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologised

Corbyn has apologised and asserted his record of opposing antisemitism and his commitment to rooting it out in the party.

How many of the dozens of accusations has he responded to by an apology? The sentence in context as it stands definitely implies a personal apology for his own (imputed) anti-Semitism and that of the Party he heads, when these are and remain allegations. One doesn't apologize for an allegation. Of the many other things Corbyn has apologized for, the invasion of Iraq, in which he played no role, we don't put that into the lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the subsections currently in this article, Corbyn has apologised for all of them apart from the DYR one. (The apology for the Facebook groups can be found in the second source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a catch all, reflecting sometimes his regret for not having known more about those he deals with, sometimes his regret for any offence caused by what he sees as potentially constructive associations and sometimes his regret about the messaging of some labour Party members or delays in the process of dealing with them, bearing in mind that his powers within the Labour Party are constrained. As a leader, he has to respond sensitively to expressed concerns. I do not think he has accepted that he or the Labour Party are antisemitic. Given this complexity,. perhaps it would be better to replace 'apologised' in the lead with the more significant actions that have now been taken in the party. Jontel (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Alleged antisemitic associations in the lede

This edit removes the text about Corbyn's alleged antisemitic associations from the lede. Two subsections (DYR and the Holocaust Memorial Day event) are about this topic (as well as the wreath-laying and calling Hamas & Hezbollah friends issue in other sections), and the first two articles in the overview section mention it, with the JC saying "Although there is no direct evidence that he has an issue himself with Jews, there is overwhelming evidence of his association with, support for – and even in one case, alleged funding of – Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites." and Der Spiegel saying "After all, after 40 years of a political career in which he has pursued the principle of speaking with all sides in the pursuit of peace, Corbyn has sat down with numerous violent anti-Semites." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To stand and remember the loss of Palestinian lives does not make you automatically anti-Semitic. It is possible to mourn and not support or side against any particular side. To try to include the remembrance of other evil genocides alongside the absolute evil of the Holocaust is not anti-Semitic. And when you have 'pursued the principle of speaking with all sides in the pursuit of peace' and meet national Palestinian leaders when you believe in the Two State Solution and hoping for peace in the region, that is also not mean he is anti-Semitic. Many world politicians meet people they do not agree with. Where is the smoking gun of direct evidence of proof that is certain enough to put the accusation in the lede. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless Corbyn has deliberately made anti-semitic remarks, there is no reason to include allegations of anti-semitism in the lede. So far, everything has been guilt by association which in reality means nothing! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot to cover in the lead, with a 45 year political career, 35 years as an MP and several years as a party leader. Increasingly, it will focus on the latter. I thimk a few meetings with Palestinians and their supporters might have to go: it is surely more important that his role as Leader in addressing antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is more significant, is appropriately summarised. Jontel (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

His role as backbencher is insignificant in relation to his recent and ongoing stint as party leader. As antisemitism is an on-going high profile issue during his term as party leader - both for him personally and for the party at large - it should be in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Corbyn's antisemitism belongs in lede because coverage of his antisemitism in books, scholarly work, and serious news coverage presents it as a major and significant aspect of his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Note that the 2019 Tom Bower biography, Dangerous Hero (Corbyn biography) includes substantive analysis of Corbyn's antisemitism. And here in Gaby Hinsliff's review of the new biography: "Bower even ascribes the antisemitism scandal now tearing Labour apart in part to (Corbyn') inability to understand that not everything is about class struggle." For better or worse, his antisemitism is a major part of Corbyn's career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• One should also note that WP:RSes have criticized Wikipedia's coverage in this regards - "Indeed, tellingly, the word “anti-Semitism” does not appear on Jeremy Corbyn’s own extensive Wikipedia page, despite the fact that it has been a defining issue of his leadership tenure." per [19] Yair Rosenberg on the Tablet. Considering RSes see this as "defining issue of his leadership tenure" - it should clearly be in the lead. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Has he said anything antisemitic in 45 years? No. Has he proposed any antisemitic policies in the UK? No. Has he supported Jewish communities in Britain? Yes. Bower's book has been described as flawed, a hatchet job and littered with rudimentary errors [20][21]. His 'crime' is to engage with the Palestinians. The phrase which was removed did not say he was antisemitic but referred to his associations with people (Palestinians and their supporters) who were so described, just as the JC says. He has explained these meetings, which occurred before he became leader and, on their own, are not particularly significant. The Tablet article is about antisemitism in the Labour Party in general, and reference to his relevance to this issue was not removed from the lead but remained unchallenged. Jontel (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tablet article is clearly on topic. As our the numerous other publications by RSes on Corbyn and antisemitism. Personal feelings or WP:OR ("Has he said anything antisemitic in 45 years? No. Has he proposed any antisemitic policies in the UK? No. Has he supported Jewish communities in Britain? Yes.") should be avoided. This is very clearly, as stated by the Tablet 2018 and evident in the copious sources available on the topic a defining topic for Corbyn's leadership term. As a Corbyn government is widely seen as an "existential threat" to Jews in the UK,[22][23] there is clearly cause for concern here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yair Rosenberg should probably have tried searching for the unhyphenated spelling of "anti-Semitism". Reliable sources are reliable because they have a reputation for fact checking. In common with much reporting on the Labour antisemitism controversy, the Tablet article distorts, misrepresents or falsifies in order to get its accusations to stick. Factual it's not! If an online magazine such as Tablet can be counted as a reliable source, I can think of quite a few other websites which take a contrary viewpoint which should similarly count.     ←   ZScarpia   10:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

this was our article on 7 January 2018 when the Tablet piece was published - no antisemitism (with or without the hyphen - a better trick, btw, is searching for "semit") in our text (there was a reference that had it in its title). Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Before commenting, I checked the date of the 'Tablet' article and then looked at some diffs from the end of December. The diffs I looked at clearly mentioned the antisemitism controversy.     ←   ZScarpia   13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's dated 10 January 2018 - this was the version then (no antisemitism). Mayhap you were looking at December 2018 (as opposed to December 2017)? Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, I thought the article was published in January 2019 rather than 2018. Curse my failing eyesight and lack of attention to detail!     ←   ZScarpia   11:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A clarification: the edit in question did not remove mention of the antisemitism allegations from the lede. It only removed the bit that goes "and for alleged antisemitic associations prior to becoming leader" because, as I see it, there are few sources claiming that Corbyn's pre-leadership conduct is at the center of this current party scandal. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources who say that - however I haven't seen any which say that his handling of antisemitism within the party is the central issue so I'm not sure why the first part of the sentence was removed instead of the second half of the sentence. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)