Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Corbyn's voting record

I have added a number of examples of early day motions signed by Corbyn. I've now been accused of edit-warring and told that the examples are not referenced to secondary sources; they are. The primary source is Hansard. I've used https://www.parliament.uk/edm and http://www.edms.org.uk. I could also use this Skwawkbox example However I don't want to touch it again because I'll, no doubt, once again be accused of edit-warring. Surely no one is claiming that these votes did not take place or are that the examples are not factual. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Rather than subjective and partisan interpretations; we should be providing relevant, accurate facts. Corbyn's voting record on antisemitism is unquestionably relevant in the section on Corbyn and antisemitism. Garageland66 (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Using a primary source such as this (vote record for a motion) shows that the proposed addition is grossly UNDUE. Furthermore, it asserts in Wikipedia's voice alleged facts on Corbyn's record on antisemitism which is a NPOV violation given that this view is not reflected in this manner in RSes. The conclusion reached by this SYNTHy passage (stitched together from primary motion records) is pure OR.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The contention seems to be simply that the sources are secondary. In response, I've now changed it so that the only sources are news media outlets; so definitely secondary. Icewhiz can you tell me if you're asserting that http://www.edms.org.uk is a primary source? It seems to be a completely independent website. It's a great source of information on MPs' voting records. It is surely something that Wikipedia editors could use for the articles on members of parliament. Garageland66 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The contention above is wider - NPOV, UNDUE, SYNTH and OR. The question of a source being PRIMARY is different from it being independent. A website recording voting records (even if totally independent and reliable) is a primary source. As for the modification in this edit - this still contains OR and is sourced to MEMO and The Skwawkbox (a blog!) which are not RSes in general, and are a definite NO-NO for BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section seems to be UNDUE, the only decent ref in there is the independent one. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I made edits to this section without seeing this here first. I agree; the only appropriate source here is the Independent one. Skwawkbox is a blog (and one which has had high-profile reliability issues), and the Middle East Monitor has its own issues with relation to BLPs (its article alleges that it has been categorised as pro-Hamas by the BBC), and the primary source should be removed as well. The Independent citation is a good one, but it does leave the text rather short for its own section – imo it would be best to re-integrate this into the main article text. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

The reported record of Corbyn's voting record adds *factual* due balance to the Jeremy Corbyn#Allegations of antisemitism and responses section, which largely paints him as an antisemite. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Factual due balance is sorely needed in that section, but this cites unreliable, hyper-partisan blogs to do so (see above), which do not pass muster as BLP sources. The Independent source seems good, though. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Providing details of Corbyn's voting record on the issue under discussion (antisemitism) seems like the sort of thing one would expect of an encyclopaedia. A parliamentarian's voting record is a good objective way of measuring their performance against the relevant criteria. No one has suggested that the information provided is incorrect. The information seems to have already been collated and is in the public domain so no research (other than maybe a google search) is required to obtain it. Regarding the use of Skwawkbox as a source, I don't have a problem in this instance since its content can and has been easily verified elsewhere.

Burrobert 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The proper manner to craft such a section is to find a couple of RSes that treat his record on the subject - and summarizing them. Cherry picking from PRIMARY or highly partisan non-RS is not proper.Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of voting record It would seem that a factual mention of a voting record which is explicitly against antisemitism would be an appropriate WP:NPOV inclusion to balance a section that presents the POV that he might be antisemitic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Also I would suggest that Icewhiz should consider putting down the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do not oppose an inclusion of a voting record per se, and I recognise that this section is biased and could do with some more NPOV, but I have to say I oppose inclusion of information cited to primary sources and hyper-partisan blogs such as the Skwawkbox (but keep The Independent reference and integrate it into the article). --Bangalamania (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of voting record Per Simin223. I would have no problem with using Skwarkbox either as it is just reporting on confirmable Parliamentary sources. We had a discussion over whether the Morning Star could be used a few weeks back, and if that is admissible, I don't see why Skwarkbox shouldn't be. G-13114 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Skwawkbox is a blog, unlike the Morning Star (see WP:BLOGS). --Bangalamania (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of voting record for two reasons. Firstly, Corbyn's voting record on antisemitism is absolutely relevant and important in an article on Jeremy Corbyn and in the section on antisemitism. Secondly, no one is claiming these votes did not take place or claiming Corbyn did not sign them. Factual accuracy and relevance is what's important. Garageland66 (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As the primary complaint is that it's a primary source, I'd point out that WP:PRIMARY also says it's OK to use primary sources as long as we don't interpret them or build the whole article around them. As such a blank statement that "Corbyn voted this way on these bills in this timeframe" is within policy, as long as we don't editorialize. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are several problems with the section as written. First, EDMs are not voting. Early Day Motions are almost never set down for debate and voted upon (none of the examples cited were). Proposing or signing an EDM is not voting. Second, EDMs are not actually published in Hansard unless an MP asks for a debate on one at Business Questions. (I have not checked whether any of these were ever raised at business questions). They were published in the Order Paper but more recently only in a separate bundle (and most people look at them online anyway). Third, signing an EDM is not a very significant act. It takes mere seconds for an MP to sign their name on a motion. Quite often they will go to sign one EDM, spot others which they like and sign them as well while they are in the Table Office. The only real significance is that MPs are then publicly identified as supporting the EDM text, but that is only really important if the text is in any way controversial (and I don't think that can be claimed here). Citing even multiple EDM signatures as solid evidence of an MP taking a lot of action on a subject is really undue weight; it might however be different if the MP was the sponsor of an EDM (ie the first named signatory). Fourthly, significant EDMs do receive secondary press coverage (or get included in things like Andrew Roth's Parliamentary Profiles) so using the Parliamentary website EDM database as a source crosses over the line in using primary sources and original research. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  As I mentioned immediately above your comment, WP:PRIMARY doesn't say never to use primary sources, just not to editorialize from them. Making a statement that Corbyn's voting record includes this and this and this is not editorializing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  The context in which the EDMs are cited is clearly editorialising under WP:SYNTH. And I don't see how either Skwawkbox (a personal blog) or Middle East Monitor (a partisan body which is parti pris over one element of the story as it actually sponsored Raed Salah's visit in 2011) can be reliable sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH in this instance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per Simonm223, Garageland66, Burrobert and G-13114 its factual accurate and relevant. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Simonm223. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of voting record as they're secondary sources with factually reports that provides much needed balance the page. What's "highly partisan" is a matter of opinion and ironic considering anything the Jewish Chronicle publish goes straight in with no questions asked. RevertBob (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  It isn't a voting record. See above. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  As I have said before, it was more of the blogging aspect I objected to (as per WP:BLOGS), not the partisanship in and of itself. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  Support as per Simonm223. Including his voting record and his activity against actual anti-semitism is important to give a more balanced view. BeŻet (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Opposeundue weight,using primary sources,original research, as well as it seems to be cherry picking in all votes related to Corbyn voting record.Tritomex (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment As I've mentioned before, WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit the use of primary sources. I would agree we should avoid WP:SYNTH and if Corbyn's voting record shows anything other than opposition to anti-semitism, that should be included too per WP:NPOV but I suspect you will find that absent. Simonm223 (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Were there any antisemitic bills introduced at Parliament during Corbyn's tenure from 1983 to date, and put to a vote? If there were no antisemitic bills introduced (and I strongly suspect is the case for this time period in the UK) - then any MP's voting record would be clear of support of antisemitism - making the record rather irrelevant in regards to antisemitism (which might explain why no serious SECONDARY RSes have been found covering this aspect of his voting record - the RSes seeing this as irrelevant up to now).Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  That was kind of my point. It's hard to make a claim for cherrypicking when all the votes on that topic are included. Simonm223 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  We currently list 6 motions he was involved in supporting (some of which are about Jewish issues at large - e.g. BBC radio's Jewish Citizen Manchester show - and not about antisemitism). Are these the only 6 motions during his 1983-2018 that involved Jews in some way? Are there motions he did not support or sign that involving Jewish issues? Motions he opposed? Picking it out ourselves from the PRIMARY recording is rife with OR and CHERRYPICKING concerns - and that's beyond the relevance question (as I'm guessing there were no antisemitic motions in Parliament in this period - so any longstanding MP's record probably shows support for some Jewish related issues (and here we are talking a 35 year time period....)). What we really need is some good secondary source analyzing this and drawing a conclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Ok but this article is treading in tenuous water for WP:NPOV as it is. It seems like there's been a rather concerted effort to present Corbyn as if he were antisemitic mostly on the basis of his opposition to the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians, and with all the recent and sensationalist news coverage on the issue, this is getting worse, not better. I don't think we should be white-washing anything, but on the other hand, using Wikipedia as a tool to smear a politician is not something we should allow either. It seems that allowing reference to his voting record, as a matter of fact, is one way we can bring some much needed balance to this article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This has to be removed until it is reliably sourced - with a reliable source directly connecting these points. Otherwise it does not fit WP:RS and it does not fit WP:OR.Avaya1 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion shows that there is support for including a section on Corbyn's voting record but it has now been completely removed. There seems to be some concern about sourcing in the section. There has been no suggestion that the information that was in the section was incorrect. The main concern seems to be with Skwawkbox as it is a blog (however the content relating to other sources was also removed). The information provided on Skwarkbox on this occasion can be easily verified elsewhere. Here is a list of the sources that were used in the section and a description of each:

1. https://www.independent.co.uk which is an RS and used frequently for references on Wikipedia

2. https://www.parliament.uk/ which is an RS and has been used on other Wikipedia pages to provide information about early day motions.

3. https://skwawkbox.org reference for 2003 ‘COMBATTING ANTI-SEMITISM’ motion can be replaced by https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/123

4. https://skwawkbox.org reference for 2013 motion ‘TACKLING RACISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM IN SPORT’ can be replaced by https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1133

5. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com which is an RS and used frequently for references on Wikipedia

After writing all this but prior to posting I noticed that the section has returned but with a new name. However some of the information may still be of interest. Burrobert 17:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Sorry thanks, i just changed its name to make it broader, maybe the name change will be rejected. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We use mainstream sources on Wikipedia. If this aspect of Corbyn's record has no mainstream RS covering it - then it is UNDUE, beyond the OR and RS issies.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No we don't, "mainstream" is subjective, we use "reliable sources" otherwise Daily Mail would also be used but it has been deemed unreliable because of its inaccurate reporting.

It's a shame you don't keep to this logic on other pages like Working Definition of Antisemitism.[1]. RevertBob (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

AGAIN this whole section has been removed despite the discussion here. I was just about to add the citations that Burrobert kindly provided. Regards the Morning Star Please see the previous discussion Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 13 # Are the Morning Star and "Ekklesia" non-tabloid sources? in the last archive. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That would have been helpful Bodney. Thanks for trying. This has the feel of the shell game where we have to guess under what cup the reason for deletion is hidden. Is it OR, RS or maybe something called "mainstream sources" whatever they are. Does the vote that is in process in this section mean anything? Burrobert 17:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The original text violated basic Wikipedia policy of WP:RS. As for piecing a text together from primary sources as some proposed, how would this not violate WP:SYNTH? Why is this text different to any other in Wikipedia. You need, surely, a reliable secondary source for inclusion of the argument to be WP:DUE and not WP:SYNTH. Avaya1 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The ‘Actions against antisemitism’ section looks fine. Can someone with the power make some minor changes please?

1. Remove the comma after “a far right party” as it does not seem necessary

2. In the same sentence as point 1 is “north London” referring to a suburb, in which case north should be capitalised, or does it mean “north of London”? Alternatively, is this the usual way of referring to that area?

3. Change the preposition from “in” to “on” in the phrase “in 23 April 1977”

4. Break up the following long sentence into at least two shorter ones: “In the same year, he was one of 42 MPs to sign a motion supporting the Jewish News investigation into the use of Facebook to promote antisemitism, in 2012, he signed a motion to try and save BBC radio's Jewish Citizen Manchester show, and in 2013, he was one of 33 MPs to sign a motion condemning antisemitism in sport”. Burrobert 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Two things are needed: a) At least one secondary reliable source stating that Corbyn has a particular record on early day motions on anti-Semitism (which the section is about, not his 'voting'); b) At least one secondary reliable source for each of the early day motions mentioned (he's signed literally thousands of these things: here's the list of 1,815 from 2010–12 alone!). Critics could cherry-pick from these to make a political point (e.g., Corbyn asserting that Israel engaged in "ethnic cleansing"); better, secondary, independent sourcing is needed to avoid the impression that this section is cherry-picking by supporters to make a political point. EddieHugh (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some concern about using https://www.parliament.uk/ to list early day motions that Corbyn has signed in relation to antisemitism. As far as I can tell the site is RS. It is used elsewhere on Wikipedia to provide details of early day motions. I am not sure whether it would be regarded as primary or secondary - both points of view have been argued. Is there is an official designation? Anyway assuming for the moment it is a primary source, it can still be used with care as long as its content is not analysed, interpreted, synthesised etc. There are only two points in the section where https://www.parliament.uk/ is used as the sole reference for a statement. In both cases the EDM is listed but no further analysis is done. It is fairly clear from the title of both EDM’s that they relate to antisemitism. The initial statement of the section is that Corbyn has a record of “opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism”. This statement is supported by secondary sources such as the Morning Star, the Independent and the Middle East Monitor and does not rely on the two EDM’s mentioned above to make the initial claim although both of course are relevant which is why they have been listed. A claim of “cherry-picking” would possibly apply if there were other EDM’s that Corbyn has signed supporting rather than opposing antisemitism and that are not mentioned in the section. I think it is fairly obvious that no such EDM’s exist. On the other hand Corbyn may have signed other EDM’s opposing antisemitism which have not been listed. I am not aware of any but if further ones are found I don’t think it would be a problem to incorporate them in the section at a later date.

Regarding the early day motion you linked to, it does not appear to be related to antisemitism so would not be relevant in this section. It would be relevant in a section on say “Corbyn’s criticism of Israel” if one existed. I also don’t see why it would necessarily be critics of Corbyn who would use it as a reference. It, like his other EDM’s, is a good illustration of Corbyn’s areas of concern and any editor may find it useful as a reference. Burrobert 14:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The Morning Star (being discussed below) article is about an anti-fascist march, not anti-Semitism, but the author/editor has tried to tag on the latter to make a more up-to-date point. The Independent article mentions only that Corbyn had put down an edm following an attack on a synagogue in 2002; there's nothing more general about Corbyn. MEMO reports that "Supporters of Corbyn [...] cited a number of Early Day Motions (EDM) in parliament in which Corbyn consistently supported Jews against discrimination". Based on those, the best we can report (for my point 'a') is something like: 'according to the Middle East Monitor, Corbyn supporters defended him against accusations of anti-Semitism by pointing to "a number of Early Day Motions (EDM) in parliament in which Corbyn consistently supported Jews against discrimination". We could then mention a small number of them (if people think it adds anything), but each would need to properly sourced, per my point 'b'. To reiterate: it's about the sources. There probably are good ones that would cover my point 'a', but no one has presented them yet. EddieHugh (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2018

There is a duplicate of the word 'the' toward the end of article. It can be found by searching for the word combination "He told", which appears only once on the page. This is followed by "the The Guardian ..."

Thanks. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 September 2018

The ‘Actions against antisemitism’ section looks fine. Can someone with the power make some minor changes please?

1. Remove the comma after “a far right party” as it is not seem necessary

2. Change the preposition from “in” to “on” in the phrase “in 23 April 1977”

3. Break up the following long sentence into at least two shorter ones (perhaps start a new sentence with “In 2012 ...”): “In the same year, he was one of 42 MPs to sign a motion supporting the Jewish News investigation into the use of Facebook to promote antisemitism, in 2012, he signed a motion to try and save BBC radio's Jewish Citizen Manchester show, and in 2013, he was one of 33 MPs to sign a motion condemning antisemitism in sport”. Burrobert 14:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

These seem minor and uncontoversial. If no one objects in a few hours I will make the changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

All  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Condemnation of Saddam Hussein in 1988

Should something like this be included in the article, in the "Labour in opposition" section?: In 1988, Jeremy Corbyn was the first Member of Parliament to raise the issue of Saddam Hussein's Halabja chemical attack against the Kurdish people. Seems significant. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Support, it belongs in the Kurdistan section.--Calthinus (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, that would make more sense! – Bangalamania (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. typical Corbyn, agree Kurdistan section ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. Needs better and current sourcing (e.g. no primary sources), but it is available - e.g. [2], and seems to be brought up frequently when discussing his foriegn policy stance.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that is better sourcing – thanks for finding that! 🙂 – Bangalamania (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Saw this in a number of gbook hits as well, but not sure of their RSness. Has been mentioned by other news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Stick to the sources, which justify 'one of the first'. What makes it "significant", by the way? Did his involvement bring about some sort of change; did it receive lots of coverage? EddieHugh (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

For a young back bencher in 88 this received quite a bit of coverage going into the 90s (the Gulf War probably drove some of this) - and it is still covered today.[3] Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The event certainly got attention, but did Corbyn's position? That Guardian article has a passing mention of it among passing mentions of lots of other things. I've no objection to including it if there's good sourcing, but, as is germane to lots of things in this article, it's strong sources, not editors' strong assertions, that are needed to show that something's of importance. (I write this as another plea to follow the sources, not to criticise any editor.) EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree Anything that helps inform readers on his foreign policy positions must be a good thing. Also the Israel/Palestine section needs expanding. Considering the level of interest in Corbyn's views on Israel/Palestine, it really ought to be improved. At the moment, more than half that section is devoted to the Tunis wreath laying controversy! Garageland66 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Since the page protection has changed, I have added this and more to the article. Feel free to discuss here if anyone disagrees. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bangalamania, in the absence of a definitive source, "among the first" should be used. The 1996 one reports "the first"; the 2018 one has "among the first". Semantically, "among the first" covers both of the sources accurately, whereas "the first" doesn't. EddieHugh (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Fair enough. —Bangalamania (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggested amendments for the section “Comments about Zionists not understanding English irony”.

I would like to suggest a few amendments to the section “Comments about Zionists not understanding English irony”.

1. The name of the Palestinian ambassador should be included somewhere in the paragraph as well as the country in which he is acting as ambassador. Perhaps the first line could be changed to start : “In a 2013 speech, the Palestinian ambassador to the the United Kingdom Manuel Hassassian said … “

2. I am concerned that the current wording does not accurately reflect what Corbyn said in his speech. There is a possibility that readers will think that Corbyn was saying that all Zionists do not understand English irony. As his speech makes clear he was referring to particular Zionists who were at a particular meeting. He also mentioned that their lack of understanding was despite them having lived in England for a very long time, probably their whole lives. He compared them with the Ambassador whom he said does understand English irony and uses it effectively even though English is not his first language. His comments in The Guardian article dated 24/8/18 makes this clear. Can I suggest that something along the following lines would be a clearer representation of what Corbyn said:

"Commenting on the event at a later date, Corbyn said that those berating the Ambassador at the event were “Zionists” who did not want to study history and who, despite having lived in England for a long time, probably all their lives, did not understand the English irony used by the Palestinian ambassador in his speech. In a statement issued on 24 August 2018 Corbyn said he had “defended the Palestinian ambassador in the face of what [he] thought were deliberate misrepresentations by people for whom English was a first language, when it isn’t for the ambassador”. In the same statement Corbyn said he used the term Zionist in an "accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”. He said that he would in future be more careful using the term "Zionist" because the political term had been "hijacked as code for Jews”".

3. It seems to make more sense to include Jonathan Sacks response in this section rather than in the “Responses” section. Perhaps it could be included after the suggested alteration above. Burrobert 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Remember to sign your talk page posts :)

Mostly done, though in stages and hope not too messy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Bodney: The changes look fine. Sorry about the signing but I don't understand what is happening. I am pushing the button with the 4 tilde's next to the label "Sign your posts on talk pages:" before posting. I am going to try pushing the button twice on this comment to see what happens (i.e. 8 tildes). The preview looks good except that my name is listed twice (Burrobert 15:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 15:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)). Burrobert 15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

_{Awe Sorry ~ regards the tildes ...lol...crazy internet ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)}

Content that may not be relevant to Corbyn

The following text appears in the section “Labour in opposition (1983–97)”:

“The mainstream Anti-Apartheid Movement agreed not to demonstrate within 30 feet of the embassy, and the London ANC did not support CLAAG's protest. In 1984, Seamus Milne wrote in The Guardian that CLAAG had "antagonised the ANC — the main liberation organisation fighting apartheid in South Africa — to which anti-apartheid has close links", and the group was monitored at this time by Special Branch as a possible Trotskyist front organisation. The organisation failed to gain Mandela's retroactive support for the group or the non-stop protest upon his release from prison in 1990”.

I don’t see that it is relevant to Corbyn and suggest it be removed. There seems to be a story behind the relationship between CLAAG, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, ANC, South African Communist Party, Pan African Congress and other anti-apartheid groups. However Corbyn’s page does not seem to be an appropriate place to recount this. Perhaps the story would be more relevant to the pages of CLAAG and the ANC. What do others think? Burrobert 14:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Not so much that it's irrelevant as that it's undue detail and a bit of a WP:COATRACK for claims of Trotskyism by way of the transitive case. I've BOLDly removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be relevant, but would have to be completely rewritten to show how it was relevant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the fact that the protest which Corbyn was arrested at was a CLAAG protest which was not supported by the Anti-Apartheid Movement should be mentioned, at the very least, because the current text seems to imply that it was.

I was in no way saying that Corbyn was a Trotskyist via guilt by association; I added comment about it being a Trotskyist group to emphasise that it was non-mainstream (unlike the AAM mentioned) and caused concertation among anti-apartheid activists. I feel this is important to mention on the article as a lot of people use the viral image to claim that Corbyn's march against apartheid was somehow instrumental in achieving majority rule in SA, whereas this information seems to suggest the opposite. But I can totally see how that seems undue on this page (maybe more appropriate on the Anti-Apartheid Movement article?) --Bangalamania (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I would be happy for it to be re-added without the middle sentence, which doesn't seem to add much and is also the more controversial bit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have re-added a modified version of this with the middle removed. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the middle sentence should be removed. However, I also think the other two sentences are not appropriate in an encyclopaedia article on Corbyn. If we are to include a summary of CLAAG’s relationship to the ANC and Mandela we should also include its a summary of its positioning in the anti-apartheid movement generally. The make up of the anti-apartheid movement was diverse and the interactions between the various groups complicated. The ANC and CLAAG did have a difficult relationship for various reasons. However, ANC was only one part (though possibly the most important group) in the anti-apartheid movement. Brown and Yaffe state that CLAAG’s “politics developed to extend unconditional solidarity with all liberation movements in South Africa and Namibia not just the ANC and South West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO), but also the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Black Consciousness Movement amongst others”. ANC’s relationship with CLAAG is only one part of a complicated story which I don’t think should be told in an article on Corbyn, especially since there is no indication Corbyn played a major role in developments and the approach to Mandela after his release. For example, Martin Plaut says that almost every Labour MP at the time was a member of CLAAG. By the way I don't have access to the times article so can't see what it said about CLAAG in relation to the anti-apartheid movement outside the ANC. Burrobert 04:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

No that's fair enough; I agree that the differences between the anti-apartheid coalition are completely undue for this page. At the very least, I think it should be mentioned that the non-stop picket was not supported by the Anti-Apartheid Movement and that the Anti-Apartheid Movement specifically did not want protests within 30ft of the embassy, as the article as it stands seems to suggest that it was. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: Sorry I don’t have access to the times article so would you mind answering a few questions:

1. Did the times use brown and yaffe’s book as the source for its article? Was any other source used?

2. Did the times say anything about CLAAG’s activities other than the non-stop picket?

3. Did the times say anything about CLAAG’s relationship with other anti-apartheid groups?

4. Did the times say anything about the relationship between the London ANC and CLAAG after Mandela’s release (other than the non reply to a letter)? Burrobert 05:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Sorry for the late reply.

1. Yes, The Times used Brown and Yaffe's book for its article (Youth Activism and Solidarity: the Non-stop Picket Against Apartheid); fairly sure nothing substantial from other sources was mentioned as the article is about the book.

2. AFAIK the only other substantial bit of information about CLAAG was the content mentioned above (Milne report, Special Branch files viewing CLAAG as Trotskyist front)

3. Source says that "The African National Congress (ANC) is understood to have advised Mandela against holding the meeting because the group was not part of the mainstream Anti-Apartheid Movement", and quotes Milne in The Guardian with regard to alleged "antagonism" (as per removed text above)

4. The Times, quoting Brown and Yaffe: "When it was announced that Mandela would be visiting London in April 1990 (for the first time since his release), several members of the City Group wrote to him requesting that he made time during his visit to meet the people who had maintained a four-year non-stop picket for his release […] The meeting never happened (and, as far as we know, many of the letters received no acknowledgment or reply). These letters were part of a political campaign to gain Mandela’s (retrospective) approval for the non-stop picket in the face of long-standing opposition to it from sections of the London ANC." So although it only mentions the non-reply specifically, it makes it clear that this was one of many.

Hopefully that was helpful to you! --Bangalamania (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Bangalamania: that was exactly what I was interested in knowing. I understand the need to avoid giving the impression that the group of which Corbyn was a member did not have the ANC’s support to protest. However I think the current wording gives readers the impression that the relationship between CLAAG and the ANC/Mandela was irretrievably broken. Therefore, I would like to suggest adding these two sentences at the end.

“In the late 1980s, the relationship between the ANC in London and CLAAG began to improve. The ANC began to acknowledge receipt of the material aid and donations collected by CLAAG and from early 1991, ANC representatives began once again to speak at rallies organised by CLAAG”.

In addition, the current wording implies that the only activities of the group of which Corbyn was a member were the Non-Stop Picket and writing letters to the ANC asking to meet Mandela. I suggest we include the other notable activities of the group so that readers get a more accurate perspective of what the group Corbyn had joined did. I would therefore like to suggest adding this to the section on CLAAG.

“This was as a member of the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group (CLAAG). The group carried out demonstrations on cricket pitches around Britain protesting against a British rebel cricket tour of South Africa captained by Mike Gatting and conducted a ‘No Rights? No Flights!’ campaign, which attempted to shut down the offices of the (state-owned) South African Airways offices in London through repeated occupations. It also carried out a "non-stop picket" for 1,408 … “

The source for these additions is either the book by Brown and Yaffe or their preliminary research paper available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helen_Yaffe/publication/238047469_Non-Stop_Against_Apartheid_Practicing_Solidarity_Outside_the_South_African_Embassy/links/571fdbb308aefa64889a86dc.pdf?origin=publication_list Burrobert 03:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally unsure as to whether all that above would be due weight for this article, although I think it is very valuable information for the Anti-Apartheid Movement article. (Pinging @Absolutelypuremilk: and @Simonm223: for further input). – Bangalamania (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was a fascinating group and I don't think we or the times (from what you have told me) have done the story justice. I thought readers might like the image of Jeremy running onto cricket pitches and grabbing the stumps to stop play in between writing letters to the ANC. There is no evidence that he did interrupt the cricket or shut down South African Airways but the same applies to the letter writing. If we can't bring ourselves to mention that the ANC and CLAAG's relationship did improve and that the ANC did eventually acknowledge the support that CLAAG provided, then perhaps we could include a suitable reference along with the times article that would allow the readers to find out more than what is in the seemingly limited times article. One such reference the research article I have previously mentioned and another is Martin Plaut's recollections at https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/no-nelson-mandela-did-not-snub-jeremy-corbyn. Actually one other possible change that would put Corbyn's role in CLAAG in perspective in the absence of anything else is Plaut's statement that almost every Labour MP at the time was part of the Non-Stop picket. Anyway, I'll wait to get further input before moving on. Burrobert 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I don't think that saying almost every Labour MP at the time was a part of the non-stop picket would be undue (so long as it is properly attributed to the New Statesman article); I had considered adding that myself but I didn't want to do it without discussion here first. I certainly wouldn't be against adding more reliable sources to substantiate the claim (including the research article you have mentioned). --Bangalamania (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to mention Mike Gatting in this article - I think adding something of this length would not be due weight. Perhaps we can start a CLAAG article and put this information there? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps adding this to Anti-Apartheid Movement article as a new section before creating a new page would be a better idea? Either way, I agree with you that it would be undue weight to mention Gatting or other things the CLAAG did which were unrelated to Corbyn. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be strong opinion not to include Mike Gatting's name anywhere on this page so I'll leave things as is in the CLAAG section until more information becomes available. The suggestions about moving Mike Gatting to either the AAM or CLAAG page if they will take him are good thanks. Burrobert 09:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Claim that IHRA is the 'internationally recognised definition of antisemitism'

Stating this is the Internationally recognised definition of antisemitism' violates [NPOV]. Surely it should be called the IHRA definition of anti-semitism or the 'so called' International definition of anti-semitism?

[The source used] claims that Labour sought to alter part of the internationally recognised definition of antisemitism.

[This also contradicts the Wikipedia page on the subject]. First of all Labour haven't attempted to alter the definition which is the 40 word statement, not the examples which don't form part of the definition. Secondly only eight Sovereign countries have adopted or endorsed the working definition. How can eight countries form an International definition? This is not WP:nor as claimed. Nowhere does this page accept it is an International definition.

Following its adoption by IHRA, the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions; in historical order: the United Kingdom, Israel, Austria, Scotland, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Macedonia.[8] Six of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed or adopted the definition.[10] (____) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The IHRA has as members 32 countries, the great majority of which have declined to adopt the definition. Forget about the other 140-odd nations in the international community. "International recognition" is not something that this definition possesses. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also: it's not clear to me what might be meant by a country 'recognising' a definition. Does that mean it remembers seeing the definition before? A definition might be cited in legislation; that would certainly count. Have any of the 'recognising' countries done that?

The Labour Party have 'adopted' it as a part of its internal disciplinary procedures. I'm not aware of any sovereign nation that has done anything similar (oh - Israel, probably).

These verbs - 'adopt', 'recognise' - are awfully weasely. If a body (country, party, etc.) is using this definition, then we should require clarity about how they are using it. If they are just using it as a kind of umbrella against criticism, that is not at all the same as mandating the use of the definition in court cases, disciplinary hearings etc. As far as I'm aware, the only use the 'recognising' countries are making of the definition is to state that they recognise it. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be referred to as the IHRA working definition. Reflects wording used by most RS and is more NPOV. Disagree with the use of 'so-called' as I think that violates NPOV as much as the current wording. – Bangalamania (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: I am aware that The Independent refers to it as such (in passing), but the claim was made in Wikipedia's voice. – Bangalamania (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with the other editors that the IHRA definition is somewhat tenuous, and not necessarily what the Independent seems to rely on it for - this is all besides the point. Since the story being cited as the source is an article about Corbyn and the furor surrounding acceptance of the definition or otherwise, it belongs on the page for what it is. I'm therefore restoring it as the information comfortably passes WP:RS. Winchester2313 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the edits pass WP:RS, but they the wording used was WP:POV (the "internationally recognised" claim; "forced to"). I've altered the wording to try and make it more NPOV. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is simply whether the Independent makes the wp:rs standard or not. Nobody is questioning that it does, so the information stays in. Trying to remove or manipulate a source that some people don't like is simply wp:synth and violates wp:npov. I happen to think that the IHRA is a load of s*** but the information is properly sourced, so it staysBen133 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It fails WP:BOLLOCKS. The definition is only "internationally recognized" in the sense that more then one country has recognised it. The implication of that phrase is that the IHRA definition is recognised in most of the world; it isn't - only 6 countries have adopted it (and that is sourced). The sources therefore conflict, and the Independent's claim is wrong. Hey, it won't be the first time a mainstream UK newspaper published utter tommyrot and declined to retract.

Relying on this utterance from the Independent brings Wikipedia and its editors into disrepute. Wikipedia already has an unenviable reputation for being seriously unreliable on controversial political topics. If the Independent published an article declaring that black was white, should we repeat that claim without comment, on the grounds that it was published by a RS? Of course not - it's obviously wrong. Same with the absurd claim that this definition is internationally recognised. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relying on RSes is what we do - and Independent is correct in calling this international - for starters since this is an international body. This definition is also used internationally - most recently adopted by the US education department, following widespread use in the US for years (Politico). Not all countries have an interest in antisemitism - e.g. antisemitism is not a problem in most of Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa and Ethiopia) - as Jewish communities did not exist there historically (and still don't). The IHRA includes some 42 countries - and mainly countries "that count" in this matter. Finally, for all its possible flaws, the "working definition" is the only definition out there that has international acceptance. As for Corbyn - Corbyn was strong criticized for attempting to modify the accepted international definition - if this weren't an accepted definition - there wouldn't have been any criticism. So no - this is not a RS calling black is white. This is a RS saying things for what they are. Nor is Independent alone - outlets ranging from Sky News to the New York Times use "internationally recognized definition of anti-Semitism". Editors objecting to this - should write a letter to the editor of Independent and the NYT - however on Wikipedia - we simply use sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. So it's cited to the Independent, which is supposed to be a RS; as you say, "Relying on RSes is what we do". Accordingly, I am forced to accept "internationally recognised definition", because that's what it says in the source.

However the definition is clearly not recognised by the entire international community; not even a majority of the member countries of the IHRA have adopted it. So if we are going to use this phrase, we need to unpack it. That can't be so hard - only six countries have adopted it.

For example, let's take the first country in the world to 'adopt' the definition: the UK. What does it mean to say that the UK has adopted the definition? Well, it seems to mean that two Conservative Party politicians have declared in speeches that they have adopted it. [4][5] They say no more about what that means. In particular, they have not introduced any legislation that incorporates or refers to the definition. That is interesting, because of the legal opinion of leading QC Geoffrey Robertson that the government's 'adoption' has no legal effect. [6] In this context, 'legal opinion' is technical jargon; it's not just the personal view of Robertson, it's a formal piece of legal reasoning.

Before the UK government adopted the definition, it was adopted by UK Chief Constables (in an earlier form - I don't know what form; and interestingly, they have not faced the shitstorm the Labour Party has faced over the particular version of the definition they are relying on), and incorporated into police procedure manuals. It doesn't form the basis for an arrest, or anything like that.[7] Of course, these constables are not members of the international community.

So when we say "internationally", can we please say what members of the international community we are referring to (the list is short), and what they mean by "recognise" or "adopt" (usually they just mean that they have used one of those words in a government statement).

If we don't do that, then we are abusing that RS to perpetrate a serious misunderstanding.

MrDemeanour (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What this page fails dismally is WP:BALANCE. A simple google search of 'Corbyn' news any day over the past several month's brings up articles and never-ending stories and allegations of Corbyn's alleged antisemitism. At this stage, the antisemitism crisis has become a major part of his WP:NOTABILITY as has been continually reported by a broad range of media sources. Yet certain editors here have engaged in continual WP:POV editing to 'sanitize' (for lack of a better word) Corbyn's record. I think it's time to bring in some uninvolved admin's to review this page, and for everyone editing it to re-read WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The antisemitism controversy surrounding Corbyn is not a sidebar, and the page needs to reflect the current reality based on the many WP:RS's that are continually reporting on it, not silly fringe groups etc.Winchester2313 (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The IHRA consists of 31 Member Countries and 11 Observer/Liason Countries. Thus it is an intergovernmental organisation.

So far 8 Governments have adopted it (including both the UK and Scotland). Has the US adopted it? I am not sure.

8 Countries is only a quarter of the IHRA member & observer states, and a fraction of the international community ~ So I am not sure if anyone can really call it "internationally recognised".

The independent is WP:RS, what do we do when we think a RS is not factually correct?

I think my own issue (apart from missing the passage the first time i checked the source) was the POV language _{(note: also Corbyn had not altered The Working Definition of Antisemitism examples, the Labour NEC had, thats why Labour's adoption of the amended examples is not actually on this page).}

Is the a problem with more neutral language Currently in the text?

I also put the content in date order as Frank Field's resignation was before the final adoption of the examples. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This long wall of text is OR. IHRA is an international body with 40 some members - it stands behind this. Per the Independent, the New York Times, and a few others is it a "internationally recognized definition of anti-Semitism" - RSes trump OR. There really is very little to quibble here about - take it up with the editor of the NYT.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a useful authoritative text for what the 'IHRA working definition' means and determining who has adapted what regarding the IHRA: 'Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech'

"the UK was the first country to “adopt” the IHRA definition, and it remains the only country along the transatlantic axis wherein public and quasi-public institutions regularly reference it and impute to it legal authority.

With the adoption of this definition by six of the thirty-one IHRA member states, the fight against antisemitism has been further politicized.

In most mainstream usages, particularly by its advocates, making the definition into a synecdoche for the entire text has enabled its proponents to conceal the fact that the UK government adopted only the definition, without taking a formal position on the examples.Although it has not been widely publicized, the same caveat applies to many so-called “adoptions,” which involved only the definition, and not the examples. (Andromedean (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC))

I would agree that it would be a good idea to get some uninvolved admins on this page (and hopefully at some point on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party page. However, with regards to the Google search, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply here. Additionally, since there is a Wikipedia article on antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, this page's section on the issue should be a brief summary of notable incidents involving Corbyn personally, with more in-depth coverage on the main page, as per WP:SPINOFF. (Although I understand why some see that article as a POV fork (and personally agree with that view), that is a discussion for that article's talk page, not here.) --Bangalamania (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is pretty straightforward. "Internationally recognised" is obviously a POV statement which can't be presented in the Wiki voice as fact, the page title should be used which allows readers to make up their own mind. RevertBob (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I too would like to see some oversight and input from some uninvolved admins on both this page and the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party page. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In related news the BBC offered this retraction a few days ago.

Wednesday 19th September 2018: Today, BBC Radio 4, 4 September 2018 In this edition of Today it was stated that the IHRA definition of antisemitism had “been accepted by almost every country in the world”. In fact, 31 member countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) supported the adoption of a non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism to guide the organisation in its work on 26 May 2016.

To date, according to the IHRA, the working definition has been adopted and endorsed by the following governments and bodies: The United Kingdom (12 December 2016), Israel (22 January 2017), Austria (25 April 2017) Scotland (27 April 2017), Romania (25 May 2017), City of London (8 February 2017), Germany (20 September 2017), Bulgaria (18 October 2017), Lithuania (24 January 2018), and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (6 March 2018). (Andromedean (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC))

Link to the full 2016 London School of Economics Report

London School of Economics and Political Science, Academic Report on Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn: Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: From Watchdog to Attackdog - Bart Cammaerts, Brooks DeCillia, João Magalhães, César Jimenez-Martínez

LSE Department of Media and Communications: Online Description of the "Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press" project.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to add this at the time, but I was in a minority and it got swept into the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn long grass, with another study. I am sure I saw another paper recently. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid

The Jewish press have now reluctantly accepted this in their latest editions (17th Sep). as you can see from this reference

"The Jewish Community Council of North London (JCC) initially disputed the letter’s legitimacy, however, they later said: “After making our enquiries by the lead rabbis behind the letter, we can hereby confirm the letter is authentic and is genuinely signed by the leading rabbonim of our community in full faith.” [387]

Unfortunately, despite the article making this clear someone has inserted an earlier article on the 12th Sep which is itself discredited. Could someone revert my post please? I assume we can't revert ourselves within 24hrs but someone else can? (Andromedean (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC))

@Andromedean: I am not sure about the rules. The reference to the letter has been removed. Are you not allowed to add it back in yourself? Burrobert 11:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

[This subject seems to be under a 1RR rule] try to edit and you will get a pop up. Perhaps I'm the only person on wikipedia who takes any notice of them. The last time I merely reverted a reference within 24hrs someone placed this [claim of a violation on my talk page]. I'm not sure who has violated a rule, me or the person posting these dubious 'violations' in an attempt to Game the system, I have asked for advice without reply, but I'm getting tired of it. (Andromedean (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC))

Well the most recent reason for removal (it has been removed twice) was that the letter was fake but that seems to have been based on a claim reported in the Jewish Chronicle which itself has been retracted. The claim was made by a group called the Jewish Community Council of North London. The JC article does not explain why the group would know whether the letter was genuine or why the JC and the Jerusalem Post (which wrote an article titled "Anti-Israel Satmar group forges UK rabbis' pro-cornyn letter") would accept the Jewish Community Council claims. The group is described as 'nascent' in the JC article which may possibly imply it currently does not have many members. Anyway, irrespective of all that it appears that the validity of the letter is now accepted so should be included in this section which @Bodney: has now done.Burrobert 16:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the Haredi rabbis' letter is not fake, is it notable? The section is already overweight in relation to the whole article, so is a letter posted on synagogue noticeboards signed by some pretty marginal rabbis (and the ephemeral dispute over its authenticity) deserve a whole paragraph? This belongs in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, maybe, but surely not here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the letter is notable; but to bounce back your question about which article it is in, which is the letter more about - the Labour Party as a whole or its leader? I'll note we're trying right now to shorten the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article, which is bloated.Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the letter is not fake, which is not clear, it has been ignored for the most part - mainly being coverend regarded whether it is fake or not. So besides the V issues, it is clearly UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Even the Jewish press have accepted the letter was genuine. I included this specifically to dismiss claims of fakery. “After making our enquiries by the lead rabbis behind the letter, we can hereby confirm the letter is authentic and is genuinely signed by the leading rabbonim of our community in full faith.” It is probably the most relevant letter in this section, since this group represents around 20% of Jews which will increase to 50% by 2030. However, they are politically marginalised, hence the lack of publicity for the letter. The Jewish press grudgingly had to accept the letter as genuine after pressure from an independent media. (Andromedean (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

The JC is not expressing any editorial opinion on this being a fake or genuine - it's all attributed. Skwawkbox is not a RS. If this is so important - why isn't this coverage by actual media sources (with the exception of coverage of this being a forgery) ? Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the lack of coverage makes this definitely undue to include here. Issues of validity may be relevant for inclusion in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (yes, most editors are trying to shorten that article, but equally since that article exists the coverage of antisemitism on this page is also UNDUE as it should really be a brief summary of the other article). And Skwawkbox is by no means an RS (violation of WP:BLOGS, questionable track record of reliability). --Bangalamania (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The JCC has since backed down after a challenge by Stamford Hill activists Shraga Stern and Naftoli Friedman who have since taken responsibility for the letter.

After its publication, doubts were raised about the letter and there were claims the signatories were misled as to its content before they signed. Mr Stern and Mr Friedman denied this, insisting that some of the rabbis even made their own amendments. Three of the signatories, Rabbis Eliyakim Schlesinger, Azriel Schechter and Ze'ev Feldman, all confirmed they had read and signed the letter.

Sqwawkbox is printing all the evidence which isn't being refuted. We can't accept Jewish Chronicle on authority, their reputation is much diminished by this. No-one seriously doubts it. The Torah community have original sources. Hardly anyone seriously doubts the letters authority (Andromedean (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

You have an open letter signed by a significant group of rabbis addressing this precise issue about Corbyn. I'd suggest, as long as we don't editorialize, WP:PRIMARY would allow us to print a statement of the letter notwithstanding press coverage. So how about that for a solution? Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the noteworthiness of the letter:

1. Now that the news source that published the claim about the letter being fake has accepted its authenticity I think we need to as well. It is inexplicable that it would publish the claim based on the opinion of the JCC without making basic enquiries of the signatories. In an article dated 20/9/18 the JC states “a number of rabbis later confirmed to the JC they had read and signed it”.

2. It has been covered by three of the most important Jewish news sources in English (Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and the Jewish Chronicle). All are responsible sources and some had multiple stories on the letter.

3. The coverage was focused on the claim that the letter was fake but in doing so the sources have provided information that indicates the importance of the signatories to the letter. For example, the JC states that the letter was “signed by 28 leading Charedi rabbis”. The Jerusalem Post states that the signatures on the letter are those of “haredi leaders”. It also describes the letter as having “the support of the UOHC’s Principal Rabbinical Authority Ephraim Padwa, Senior Dayan (religious court judge) S. Friedman, and 27 others”. The UOHC is Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.

4. In a recent article dated 20/9/18 the Jerusalem Post mentions the “letter defending Mr Corbyn was “signed by 34 leading Charedi rabbis”.

5. According to the JC the size of London’s Charedi community is “approximately 50,000 – the world’s largest strictly Orthodox community in Europe”. Of course the signatories do not represent the whole community and are in fact challenging the Board of Deputies as representative of the Charedi community.Burrobert 13:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The sole coverage of this is in regards to whether it is fake or not. JC only confirmed 3 rabbis - and doesn't state anything regarding authenticity in its own voice. JPost published it was fake - [8] - but has not retracted. And absolutely no one (at least per sources presented here) has covered this in a non-forgery context.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly a notable document; there is clearly press coverage of it. Please stop trying to game WP:NOTE to exclude things that are inconvenient to your POV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. Sources please - if it is so notable - where is the coverage of this (in a non-forgery context)?Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That sort of moving of goalposts is exactly what I'm talking about. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I did say above the coverage was focused on the authenticity of the letter. In fact the Times of Israel did publish an analysis of the content of the letter by Moshe Forman on 18/9/18. He make an attempt at interpreting what the letter was trying to say. Among other things he said in his article "who was the letter aimed at? I believe it was written to the mainstream Jewish community, pleading with them to keep a low profile". Burrobert 15:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The letter obviously has a degree of notability, in that the apparent signatories are senior figures in the Haredi community, although they don't represent all the highly factionalised sections of that community, which altogether represents about 15% of the British Jewish population), and it got some news coverage, mostly over the question of if the letter was real or not. But this is an article about Jeremy Corbyn, not about his relationship with different Jewish denominational communities, and it is unclear why this particular letter is notable enough to be mentioned, let alone get a whole paragraph, when all sorts of people's opinions on him or letters about are flit through the news literally every single day. What is the case that this letter is really important enough to get lines in this article? I feel this letter is of ephemeral and not sustained public significance. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would only support that position if every single reference to this silly, hyperbolic, partisan scandal was expunged. If we must comment on Corbyn's involvement in the Labour Antisemitism Scandal at all here, we should include defenses of him from the Jewish community and not just cherry-picked hit pieces. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the letter indicates why it is relevant to an article on Jeremy Corbyn: "We were shocked to hear that there are those who are spreading reports that the Jews in England are united against the head of the Labour party, Mr Jeremy Corbyn. They have also publicised that as a result Jews are considering leaving the Land of England out of concern that he may be elected as prime minister". The notability of the letter including the standing of the signatories has already been discussed above. The current article on Corbyn already includes the opinions of other sections of the Jewish Community (e.g. "In March 2018, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council accused Corbyn of not tackling antisemitism ...") as well as referencing at least three other letters giving opinions about the antisemitism claims. Burrobert 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I don't think we can equate the Board of Deputies (a body which democratically represents 85% of practising Jewish households) or the JLC (which represents all the main mainstream organisations of British Jewry) with a group of rabbis leading tiny marginal communities in Stamford Hill? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks as though we have a 3-3 draw. We can either have extra time, go to penalties or perhaps invite others to join the discussion via RfC. Any other suggestions? Burrobert 05:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

It's a bit ridiculous that we are still arguing about this. The issue on whether the letter was genuine has long since been resolved. The Jewish Chronicle referred to it yesterday regarding a planned Charendi demonstration outside the Board of Deputies’ annual fundraising dinner.

"It follows a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn, signed by 34 leading Charedi rabbis, was circulated in the strictly Orthodox communities of North London, centred on Stamford Hill, which condemned bodies such as the Board for being so stridently critical of Labour's antisemitism crisis under Mr Corbyn."

The Jewish Chronicle has totally backed down. The only issue is whether the Jewish Chronicle can be considered to a more reliable source than the Sqwawkbox considering the former has recklessly attempted to censor and demean the views of this sector of the Jewish community, and latter has scrupulously checked sources and followed professional journalistic practice. Time to move on surely? (Andromedean (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC))

I think the coverage justifies inclusion but the content trimmed in proportion to the coverage received. RevertBob (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: your deletion of that paragraph was counter to the wishes of most of the participants in this conversation and verging very close to WP:TEND territory. I ask you here to please immediately self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

While there are walls of text in this discussion - there is no consensus for inclusions of this UNDUE possibly fake letter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are the last person left on earth who thinks this letter is fake. You're editing tendentiously and you've crossed a line with this one. I would suggest you need to consider walking it back. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the letter is notable enough, given that it hasn't been widely covered. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion re: Simonm223, Andromedean & Burrobert. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The Finlayson Article

London Review of Books - Lorna Finlayson - Corbyn Now, Vol. 40 No. 18, pages 17-18, 27 September 2018.     (link added by   ZScarpia)

The recent article by Finlayson in the London Review of Books will be good for a lot more than the antisemitism scandal related quote I pulled from it this morning. It is a great document for contextualizing how British responses to Corbyn more reflect the biases of an increasingly conservative political establishment than those of the average person. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winchester2313: would you care to explain how an article by a British politics professor in the London Review of Books violates WP:NOR or how it possibly constitutes WP:FRINGE did you even look at the source?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's very simple. It fails WP:RS so it cannot be on the page. Whatever you or a million other people do or don't think about this professor is irrelevant - it still doesn't justify WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Using that document as a source clearly violates WP:NOR. The policy is very very clear - if it's mainstream, there will be sources in the mainstream media reporting it, and then it can be here. Otherwise it cannot. In my original deletion I simply typed WP:RD by mistake instead of WP:RS which is the actual standard it fails.Winchester2313 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait now you are trying to suggest that the London Review of Books isn’t a RS? Surely you must be joking. Simonm223 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference @Simonm223:. Added to the London School of Economics reference above provided by @ZScarpia: it shows that academia is starting to analyse, reflect on and interpret the effect Corbyn and the policies he espouses have had on various sections of society. Some rational analysis can surely only raise the level of the debate. As you said there should be some useful information to incorporate into the Corbyn page. Burrobert (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. The LRB fails a number of key Wiki standards for inclusion, and until Finlayson's opinions can be cited from valid SECONDARY sources, they cannot be included here. Please do not reinsert this until it can comply with WP:RS. As certain editors here seem unaware of the WP:NOR criteria for inclusion, might I suggest studying WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NPOV before continuing to WP:WAR over very basic policy?Winchester2313 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

We would be failing WP:BALANCE if we include Finlayson's opinion without including more widely published and analyzed opinions by antisemitism experts - e.g. Deborah Lipstadt who has analyzed Corbyn's comments in depth finding them antisemitic,[9] (after the irony comments) while previously saying "Corbyn is at best “blind to overt manifestations of anti-Semitism”, and that the Labour party under Corbyn is responsible for the rise of softcore Holocaust denial in the UK.[10] Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This claim is regarding the level of anti-semitism within the Labour party, not any particular statement or attitude by Corbyn, and I'm sure these issues are already covered under the relevant sections. [According to this advice,] book reviews are usually considered secondary sources, and this is certainly a reputable one. Once again certain editors are gaming the system using Wikipedia's extensive set of rules in an attempt to exclude something they don't like. Moreover, there is extensive criticism of the Labour party and anti-semitism in the literature, most of it unfounded and highly opinionated, the problem is to obtain balance in the opposite direction from sources that will be accepted by everyone. (Andromedean (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC))

To the contrary, Lipstadt directly addresses Corbyn. Academic experts on antisemitism are clearly relevant to antisemitism and Corbyn - moreso than a random political scientist.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither Lipstadt nor Finlayson, nor any other academic or other expert writing an opinion piece, can be cited here as a WP:SOURCE. This is an encyclopedia and not a forum for debate or analysis of positions or their respective proponents or detractors. WP:SCHOLARSHIP would be a good starting point for those WP:POV warriors seemingly determined to force fringe opinions onto the page.Winchester2313 (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

[These are the guidelines], I've already linked them

A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review

[Book reviews] Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents. Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material: e.g., an analysis of some aspect of the book (secondary) plus the reviewer's rating or opinion about the book (primary). Simple plot summaries, synopses, other basic descriptions of a work's contents are generally primary sources. Again, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources.

The main problem with Lipstadt is the discipline and experience (doesn't she work under Rabbi Sacks in a theology dept?) which makes her a potentially biased source (Andromedean (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC))

@Andromedean: Please be specific in your assertions of lack of experience - it would to me that Lipstadt is the leading expert on modern British antisemitism with her widely noted work on Irving. And how precisely is she connected to Sacks? Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

sorry I was getting her confused with someone else. She seems rather inconsistent in her views though (Andromedean (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC))

It is obvious that any academic study that meets the Wikipedia criteria should be admissible here independent of the outcome of the study. Academic studies that are critical of Corbyn are therefore also admissible of course. Both the LRB and LSE are well known and respected organisations/publishers and reports issued under their aegis should be valid sources for this article. The same would apply to reports or articles published by say Deborah Lipstadt in responsible sources (and The Atlantic is a RS). The article by Deborah Lipstadt linked to here covers Corbyn’s comments in defence of the Palestinian ambassador to the UK. This issue has already been covered on the main page so the particular article would not add anything to the discussion I think. By the way Deborah Lipstadt’s reasoning in the article did seem a little tendentious. She initially stated that Corbyn made the remarks to “some Zionists” who did not understand English irony but then spent much of the article proving that irony was in fact a part of Jewish culture as if Corbyn had said that this was not so. The other issue was that even though Corbyn had used the term “Zionist”, Lipstadt made her argument based on the premise that he really meant Jew. We currently have a statement from Corbyn in the article explaining about the hijacking of the term Zionist to mean Jew and this seems to be one example of that. Let's hope that the two terms survive as independent entities.Burrobert (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

London Review of Books passes RS. As per User:Andromedean, the claim that Wiki needs to use "mainstream" are a misconception or disingenuous claim used by editors to keep content they don't like off pages. Other stuff doesn't exist argument doesn't fly either. RevertBob (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree the Finlayson article is good enough in reliability terms to include for sourcing her view, but I don't understand the notability. Should the responses section include all responses to the Corbyn/antisemitism affair? Surely not. There must be dozen of op eds by academics on this issue, including some more prominent than Finlayson, who is not very well-known and whose expertise is not in this field - see her university page. I think it should be removed unless secondary sources suggest it is significant. [Forgot to sign this yesterday BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Effectively what it comes down to is this: if a random historian from the US is seen as having a WP:DUE opinion on Corbyn for this article, as certain parties insist, then by the same argument, a political scientist from the UK with a responsive opinion is also WP:DUE the source is reliable and other arguments against inclusion have frankly been farcical. I would rather we kill most of this whole bloody section and scour out all opinion pieces, academic or otherwise, but if we can't do that then, per WP:BALANCE we should not have any circumstance where only negative opinion pieces are allowed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Who is the random American historian? Lipstadt isn't in the article. And Lipstadt is one of the world's preeminent scholars of antisemitism, while Lorna Finlayson is a young, little-known philosopher. At the moment this section has an MP resigning, all the Jewish newspapers in the UK sharing an editorial on Corbyn, the views of the main representative bodies of British Jews, and Corbyn's own responses to these - those are all obviously notable incidents. The section also includes (at some length) three open letters with lists of signatories by Jews who support Corbyn. To add a fairly arbitrary comment piece from the LRB - currently the only opinion piece in the section; there is no need for scouring - seems completely undue. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of opinion pieces by academics about this, including by academics who work on this subject as their specialism (Lipstadt, Dave Rich, Brendan McGeever and Feldman, Mark Mazower, Keith Kahn-Harris, Matt Seaton, Yair Wallach) - so why is Finalyson the one we choose to devote space to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Briefly, leaving aside the merits of including or not including Finlayson, the section you are referring to is not a section in isolation, but merely a subsection that is part of an overall section that makes accusations of antisemitism. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on the Finlayson article here (imo, as I said to Simon on his tp, there should really be a page Reactions to the antisemitism controversy in the British Labour party where we can dump everyone's two cents that seem to just clog every relevant page), but this sort of logic has been a slippery slope. We already have a section now, thanks to a consensus based largely on this sort of reasoning, that relies on a communist paper that was formerly bankrolled by the USSR, to portray Corbyn's actions against general fascism as some sort of personal policy to support Jewish communities (he has never made this a priority, publicly at least). Although I understand the relevant BLP issues while also keeping in mind BLP for Luciana Berger and the like -- as I said, much of hte controversy belongs on other pages, imo... -- it is also concerning to me to see this argument used without clear and agreeable statements of where the actual goalposts for balance should be.--Calthinus (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bodney, I've gone through the whole of the larger section now, and I'm not seeing any other opinion pieces by academics, so I don't understand your point. I don't have a particular view on this opinion piece, but really don't understand why it would be the one we choose to give attention to, out of all the possible ones. Seems arbitrary. Better to remove all opinion pieces, unless secondary sources suggest they are notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In your previous edit above you seemed to only mention stuff within this subsection, so I might have misunderstood you. Personally I am part divided about opinion pieces, but we also know the vast majority of what we call the RS press is heavily biased against Corbyn and will like the Telegraph pick up and print any mud that might stick. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bodney, just to say you were right: in my previous comment I was only referring to the sub-section. I looked at the whole section prompted by your comment. Even if we felt the need to include opinion pieces for some reason, I simply don't understand Finlayson's is the one we pick, rather than ones by more notable and subject-specific experts, such as those I mentioned above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley I guess she was simply just the most recent. Not a great inclusion argument I know :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM and lack of WP:SECONDARY sources discussing this primary opinion - that would be an argument against inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)