This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
I propose this as an abbreviated synthesis of the material we have. The statistics are as follows:
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, [1] Jewish News claiming that Corbyn’s management of the issue posed an "existential threat to Jewish life". [2] [3] Others within the community, such as Jewish Voice for Labour [4]and 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. [5] 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. [6] Party statistics about complaints of anti-Semitism in the ranks (April 2018-March 2019) indicate they relate to roughly 0.1% of the membership. [7]
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. [8] 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. [9] When this detail emerged, Corbyn stated he had not been familiar with this aspect of Eisen's background at the time. [10] 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. [1] 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 [11]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. [12] [1] [13]
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." [14] 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" [15] and that he would now be more careful using it because it had been "hijacked as code for Jews". [16] 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". [17]
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. [18] The issue led Margaret Hodge MP to tell Corbyn he was 'a fucking antisemite and a racist’. [19] 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. [20] [21]
Corbyn said he did attend a few meetings some years ago of a group called Deir Yassin Remembered
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)
(I believe) Nishidani ( talk) 12:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"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)
There is no significant disagreement of the nature of the mural.
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)
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·)
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. [1]
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)
One easier way to trim down the antisemitism section would to remove this subsection. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:14, 18 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)
here You say I need a consensus. Well
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)
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 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 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)
Given that is how he describes himself, I'm not sure it is an accusation. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
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. [2]
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Last=
ignored (|last=
suggested) (
help)
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
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)
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. [1] Jewish News 's Richard Ferrer, seconded by two other Jewish newspapers in Britain accused Corbyn of being an ‘existential threat to British Jews’. [2]
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
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)
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
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.'
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.") 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
I propose this as an abbreviated synthesis of the material we have. The statistics are as follows:
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, [1] Jewish News claiming that Corbyn’s management of the issue posed an "existential threat to Jewish life". [2] [3] Others within the community, such as Jewish Voice for Labour [4]and 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. [5] 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. [6] Party statistics about complaints of anti-Semitism in the ranks (April 2018-March 2019) indicate they relate to roughly 0.1% of the membership. [7]
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. [8] 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. [9] When this detail emerged, Corbyn stated he had not been familiar with this aspect of Eisen's background at the time. [10] 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. [1] 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 [11]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. [12] [1] [13]
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." [14] 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" [15] and that he would now be more careful using it because it had been "hijacked as code for Jews". [16] 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". [17]
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. [18] The issue led Margaret Hodge MP to tell Corbyn he was 'a fucking antisemite and a racist’. [19] 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. [20] [21]
Corbyn said he did attend a few meetings some years ago of a group called Deir Yassin Remembered
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)
(I believe) Nishidani ( talk) 12:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"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)
There is no significant disagreement of the nature of the mural.
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)
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·)
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. [1]
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)
One easier way to trim down the antisemitism section would to remove this subsection. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:14, 18 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)
here You say I need a consensus. Well
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)
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 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 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)
Given that is how he describes himself, I'm not sure it is an accusation. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
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. [2]
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Last=
ignored (|last=
suggested) (
help)
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
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)
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. [1] Jewish News 's Richard Ferrer, seconded by two other Jewish newspapers in Britain accused Corbyn of being an ‘existential threat to British Jews’. [2]
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
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)
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
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.'
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.") 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)