Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

Comments of mural artist about antisemitic mural

The artist Mear One denied that his mural was antisemitic, which seems to contradict every reliable source I have seen - I don't think a single one has said that it wasn't antisemitic. Should we include his comments in the article? It would seem to be a fringe view. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The fringe views of the creator of the mural are irrelevant to the political scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
We should certainly include his point of view. An artist is entitled to defend his own work. It would be scandalous censorship to exclude his viewpoint. 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs) 06:13, February 12, 2019 (UTC)
There is also the question of neutrality to consider. Israeli, pro-Israel and anti-Corbyn sources, or those with biases in that direction, will have a tendency to ignore what Ockerman said, or to quote him selectively; pro-Palestinian or pro-Corbyn ones will do the opposite. Curiously, Absolutelypuremilk is arguing that all the reliable sources he's seen contradict Ockerman's claim that the mural is not antisemitic (ie. all the sources state that the mural is antisemitic), yet Ockerman's claims are cited to a 2012 article in the Times of Israel which does not follow that pattern. Instead of taking a position itself (note that the word "anti-semitic" in the title is in quotes), it presents the story as a set of claims, contrasted by some of what Ockerman counter-claimed. A 2012 Haaretz article outlines Ockerman's response in even more detail. So, we have two Israeli sources dating back to when the mural was painted which contradict Absolutelypuremilk's claim. Conventional news sources which are pro-Corbyn or take a neutral stance are fairly thin on the ground, but they do exist, such as this Morning Star article. Non-conventional news sources, such as this Jewish Voice for Labour posting of a Jonathan Cook article, also take a contrary position to the one Absolutelypuremilk says reliable sources take. Of course, they aren't reliable sources for statements of fact, but, they are permissible for statements of opinion if considered significant enough.
This artice by Matt Cooper on the Workers' Liberty site has an interesting examination of Ockerman's claims about the mural.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@ZScarpia: It sounds like an interesting story which could be expounded on its own page if one does not already exist. Corbyn himself has accepted that the mural contained antisemitic elements and apologised and that is probably the important thing for this page. He may have done that for political reasons, i.e. he may have thought fighting a battle for the mural may have used up too much political capital and sidetracked him from his main aim. Or he may have genuinely reviewed his position. Including the artist's view on Corbyn's page to provide background is not unreasonable. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't seen those articles, thanks for adding them. I can't see the Haaretz article due to a paywall, could you summarise further? I don't think newspapers saying "antisemitic" in quotation marks is evidence that they don't think it is antisemitic, more likely just to avoid being sued! Perhaps others can weigh in on whether it is a fringe view that the mural is not antisemitic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Print version of the Haaretz article.     ←   ZScarpia   09:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
We should prefer sources temporally removed from the event. At the time reporting - particularly second hand reporting - often uses quotes and attribution (e.g. according to X, "Y") - particularly when the reporting outlet did not verify the facts themselves and are relying on the fact checking of a different outlet. It is not an indication that the reporting outlet doubts X. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we change "The artist, Mear One, denied that the mural was antisemitic" to The artist, Mear One, denied that the mural was intended to be antisemitic." He can only speak on his intentions, not on how others perceive it. Similarly, while other can doubt his intentions, it is hard to prove that they were not what he said. Would that work for people? Jontel (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The opinions of the painter, who is not an expert on antisemitism, carry little weight and are WP:UNDUE. Further more we are promoting a WP:FRINGE view when including such an opinion, which generally has been little covered in the context of Corbyn (as Corbyn himself - as well as all mainstream sources see the mural as clearly antisemitic). Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree; that is what I am saying. There is a certainly the possibility of a distinction between what he intended to convey, which he is an expert on, and how others perceive the work. So, I agree we should not quote him saying the work is antisemitic. Say instead that he did not intend it to be, which is certainly what he is asserting. His views on his intentions are not WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. Jontel (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
As this article is on Corbyn, the painter's intentions are simply irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The artist's opinion has no place in an article about Jeremy Corbyn, who did, after all, recognize this that this mural employs an antisemitic trope when it was pointed out to him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course the actual intention of the artist is as relevant as any third party commentator. We should strive to keep this BLP article balanced and reasonably neutral. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No, the intention of the artist is only as relevant as any commentator having an equal amount of write-up in reliable sources, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. If the amount of coverage is a majority or minority viewpoint, it should be included. If it is the opinion of only a tiny minority, it should not be covered. It's as simple as that. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the intention of the artist does appear in reliable sources discussing the mural, not least the commentary on media disinformation in the reporting of Labour antisemitism in the 2018 full report by the Media Reform Coalition of Birbeck College, London (see the "Muralgate" (page 13) section): Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018. A question: in your determination of what the majority or minority viewpoint is, should you take into account that some of the sources, such as the Jewish Chronicle and a number of Israeli publications, are not only pretty biased, but have, relatively, tiny circulations?     ←   ZScarpia   12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, the introduction of the word "intended" would misrepresent the intent of what Mear One said. As far as "expert" opinion goes, Mear One could be expected to know better than anyone whether the people portrayed represented generic stereotypes or real people. What is or is not antisemitic is, of course, a matter of some controversy. I doubt that it is really policy-compliant for editors to start singling out a group of commentators they agree with and calling them expert. After all, what would be the reaction if, say, an editor wanted to edit Wikipedia based solely on what a singled out group of experts on anti-Palestinian racism had to say?     ←   ZScarpia   12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The facts?:

  • Back in 2012, Kalen Ockerman painted a mural in Shoreditch, an area of London that had at one time been the location of one of the largest Jewish communities in the UK, which raised objections. The objectors felt that the characters portryed playing Monopoly represented traditional antisemitic stereotypes.
  • In defending the mural, Ockerman stated that those pictured were real-life figures from the financial world, the majority of whom were non-Jewish (although, rather bizarrely, in one instance, he said that one of the figures actually represented Aleister Crowley). So, the accusations of antisemitism depend on the mural portraying antisemitic stereotypes; the defence depends on those portrayed being real-life people rather than stereotypes, the majority of whom were non-Jewish. Interestingly, as far as I can determine, with the exception of the Workers' Liberty article, nobody has actually compared the portrayals with known portraits or photographs of the people Ockerman claims are represented to determine whether his claims stand up.
  • After Jeremy Corbyn, a long-term supporter of Palestinian rights, became the Labour Leader (and particulary after the Brexit mess made it look less unlikely that he didn't stand a chance of becoming Prime Minister), incidents from the past were dusted off in order to attack him as an antisemite.
  • One of the incidents dug up was the 2012 story of the mural. Corbyn had compared the removal of the mural to the censorship of one by Diego Rivera.
  • After the mural story was dug up, Corbyn apologised, admitting that the mural was clearly antisemitic, presumably accepting the argument that the portrayals represented antisemitic stereotypes. However, supporters of Corbyn and those who believed that the Labour antisemitism controversy was being deliberately trumped up in order to get rid of Corbyn and suppress pro-Palestinian elements in the Labour party, continued to point to Ockerman's defence of the mural: the mural cannot be antisemitic if it portrays real people, the majority of whom are not Jews.
  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to neutrally represent what reliable sources say. Sources are considered reliable if they have a reputation for fact checking, though, in the case of many newspapers or journals, that often has to be taken on faith; sources may also be considered as reliable for opinions if those opinions are considered worthy of inclusion. Sources which discuss the mural take a variety of positions: some take the position that the mural was antisemitic, some neutrally report the controversy, avoiding taking a position, and some take the position that it is not antisemitic, basing that position on Ockerman's statements about who the mural portrays.
  • One argument here seems to be that all reliable sources state that the mural is antisemitic and so claims to the contrary are irrelevant. Hopefully I've shown that the basis of that argument is untrue, producing sources which neutrally report without taking a position or refuting the claim of antisemitism.
Just to butt in here, but I didn't say that all sources state that it is antisemitic, rather that no RS has said that it isn't antisemitic, which as you point out are two very different things. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One argument seems to be that only the sources which state that the mural is antisemitic are 'expert' in the matter and so claims to the contrary don't matter. In my opinion, that argument, that basically only those who attack the mural and therefore Corbyn know what they're talking about, amounts to point-of-view pushing. The case rests on whether or not antisemitic stereotypes are portrayed or not: if they are, the mural was antisemtic; if they weren't, it was not.
  • One argument is that Ockerman's statements are irrelevant. Ockerman's statements were central to the defence of the mural and therefore of Corbyn and are therefore are certainly not irrelevant. Remove Ockerman's claims and you remove the rationale for the defence of Corbyn over the mural. That may be seen as desirable, but it is certainly not neutral, something which, policy-wise, it particularly important in BLP articles. A further issue is which sources should be cited for Ockerman's statements. Some sources will have tailored their reporting of what Ockerman said in order to suit their position.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-semitism not in lede?

I was very surprised to see that Corbyn's anti-semitism allegations are nowhere to be found in the lede. Allegations of anti-semitism are very prominent in the body, and the lede should reflect the body, no? This is well-sourced, highly relevant content from a wide mix of RS. I think it's certainly WP:DUE in some capacity. Any thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well - it perhaps the main issue he's been dealing as party head, so yes it is lede due. Finding the right language though will be a challenge.Icewhiz (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Its controversial current material - so very difficult to summarise in the lede even if it carries sufficient weight. That might be true if there are significant resignations but we are not there yet -----Snowded TALK 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I would support inclusion if we can summarise it neutrally. Possibly something like "Corbyn has long campaigned for Palestinian rights, but some claim that at points this has crossed into anti-semitism, such as attending memorials for Palestinians by a group that was founded by Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier, being a member of pro-Palestine Facebook groups which contained antisemitic content and opposing the removal of a mural containing antisemitic content. Corbyn denied that he knew about the Holocaust denial of Eisen and the antisemitic content in the Facebook groups and the mural." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Corbyn wreath-laying controversy (Black September terrorists) should probably be in there as well. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If we had lots of space then yes, but I think those three are the easiest to explain in a limited space. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also remove - "Corbyn has long campaigned for Palestinian rights, but some claim that at points this has crossed into anti-semitism" - as many of the anti-semitism claims are unrelated to Palestinians - e.g. the Mural contained several antisemitic tropes, but was unrelated to any geopolitical conflict. Likewise his backing of a proposal to rename Holocaust memorial day or many of the anti-Semitic incidents within lower ranks of Labour (Corbyn being criticized for handling of them). Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the sensitivity of the subject I would suggest coming up with a wording and trying to get consensus first on the talk page followed by an RfC if that does not work. There is a potential for edit-warring otherwise. My preference would be not to go into specific incidents in the leading paragraph but instead mention that it has been an issue and provide a general defence of Corbyn. One general form of defence is: "... others have said that Corbyn has a long record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism and point to his record both inside and outside parliament to support the claim". The details are already in the main body of the article.Burrobert (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Others being Corbyn and supporters of Corbyn in Labour. I agree though that discussing the generality (wide accusations of antisemitism and mishandling of complaints of antisemitism in the party) is more important than the specific incidents (of which there have been many). We do need to mention a time frame - which in my view has been from the beginning of his tenure as leader through to the present. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that actually right? I'm pretty sure the accusations were there before but went unnoticed as he was considered extreme left. Once he took the leadership people started to give more weight to those accusations. Kigelim (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
How is something along these lines: "Corbyn has faced accusations of antisemitism for several of his actions, such as his support for a mural containing antisemitic tropes and his association with Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier. However, Corbyn has strongly denied these accusations, and his supports have pointed to his track record of opposition to racism." I think that succinctly summarizes several of the more major controversies in the body, while maintaining a WP:BALANCE and clarifying Corbyn's strong denial. Thoughts? Probably easier to resolve here first before shifting to a RfC. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) This debate is not improved by unfounded truculent sentences like 'Others being Corbyn and supporters of Corbyn in Labour.' Despite what some editors and newspaper hacks may write, the accusation is still wholly disputable and highly contentious; the is no real solid evidence that Corbyn is antisemitic. Biographies of living persons are supposed to be written conservatively. This must be especially true in relation to any attempt to put any non neutral abhorrent allegations in the lede. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Saying "his support for a mural containing antisemitic tropes and his association with Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier." is controversial in itself, and I doubt that would get consensus. Making the assumption that asking why the mural was being removed counts as "support" for it is POV in itself, as is the claims about his 'association' with Paul Eisen, without careful qualification, such as here. Altogether I think this article gives too much space to this topic anyway, although it is at least relatively neutral. If it must get mentioned in the lede it needs wording more neutral than that. G-13114 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear long standing campaign by a group of editors to emphasise antisemitism in this article and its not something which is established - it's controversial and also recent. There is also a tendency to assume that anyone who opposes this is a Corbyn fan, which may the case for some but is by no means universal. If anything there is too much on the subject in the main article and I can't see any justification any elaborate statement in the lede and there isn't anyway I can see to get it to a single sentence that might (and I say might) be justified. It is certainly the case that no change should be made on this without consensus on the talk page. This is starting to get to the level where it may need to be an arbcom case as it keeps coming up -----Snowded TALK 16:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent it is not - this has been an on-going scandal in Labour under Corbyn from 2016 (leading to Corbyn appointing the Chakrabarti Inquiry) through 2019. Considering Corbyn's most significant political position to date has been 2015-19 - as party leader - it is hard to exclude on that basis. as for what is established - it seems the new York Times and theWashington Post (as well as several other premier mainstream sources) think this is a major issue. Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why we would consider a pair of American newspapers to be a guide to what to write in an article about a British politician, they're not exactly at the coalface. G-13114 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This has been covered by the Guardian, the BBC, and the Independent has an entire section devoted exclusively to the topic. I cannot find a single major British paper that has not extensively covered the issue.. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • US newspapers (some, including these two) are better than any UK papers, these days. The UK's papers are either illiterate or too heavily biased. Even the BBC is dubious for anything political. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of the UK rags have a dog in the political fight - e.g. The Guardian is to a large extent seen as supporting the anti-Corbyn establishment wing in Labour. The US papers (NYT and WaPo being major papers of record) cover this from a much more disinterested and neutral stance. (Looking the other way - I prefer the UK rags covering Trump over the US ones for general tone - for the same reason).Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot of the above (like the Chakrabarti Inquiry) is about the Labour Party not specifically about Corbyn himself. And yes I agree that the UK press media is sadly largely either Unreliable or highly compromised by overt political bias ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What about adding the paragraph, slightly edited from lower down (given the consensus seems to be to keep it general rather than focus on specific incidents):

Jewish organisations have expressed concern about Corbyn's endorsements of individuals known for promoting antisemitic ideas, and his relationship with Islamist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas.[1] The German newspaper Der Spiegel described Corbyn as a human rights activist whose "political career has been characterized by a consistent stance against racism and intolerance" but following incidents of antisemitism "has done little to stem the tide and has even made the problem worse at times", dividing his supporters.[2] Supporters of Corbyn respond that he has been the victim of a witch-hunt and that the attacks against him are politically motivated.[3] They note that he has signed several parliamentary early day motions (EDMs) opposing antisemitism and said to any supporters espousing antisemitic ideas that "You do not do it in my name".[2]

thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This would probably be too much for the lead. In my view specific incidents would be more appropriate to mention rather than the view of a single article in one foreign newspaper. I understand that some people may be trying to censor or hide mentions of the anti-semitism , but we should not go too extreme in the opposite direction and give a false balance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to note that ModerateMike729 added this to the lead and Bodney removed it. I thought that version was fairly good. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bodney--care to comment? I'm not sure what aspect of my addition was "blatant POV", as I borrowed directly from quite a large number of reliable sources. Can you clarify specifically what part of my added content was in violation of WP:NPOV because with all due respect I'm quite confused by your comments. Additionally, you say it's "way too early" to amend the lede, but I've read the discussion above over several times, and there appears to be a clear majority of editors in favor of including mention of the anti-semitism accusations, given their highly extensive level of coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. I'd be glad to debate how to tweak my additions or decide which anti-semitic incidents are most DUE for the lede, but removing it altogether certainly seems like whitewashing. PS: by my count there are seven editors so far who have expressed support for at least some degree of inclusion of these accusations in the lede (although it seems there are some disputes on phrasing), whereas only two editors have flat-out opposed including this at all--one of them being Bodney. Perhaps there is more discussion to be had first, but I don't think it's fair to characterize this discussion as far away from consensus. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"Amongst other scandals" is POV and UNDUE. Basically, if you're adding a section to the lede that effectively calls Corbyn an anti-semitist, you need to think about it again. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
So get rid of "amongst other scandals" then. Everything else was fine. It was not calling him an antisemite. It said Corbyn has faced allegations of antisemitism and highlighted those reasons why. It is clear that there is ample sources, and the sources in the article are numerous and it is about time that it is mentioned in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest that discussion is probably best held amongst editors who haven't got a reason for desperately wanting to include it. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you think I have "got a reason for desperately wanting to include it"? Let's assume good faith here. And I'm not calling Corbyn anything. I'm adding relevant, well-sourced content from reliable secondary sources, which is what we're supposed to do. I'd be glad to exclude the "among other scandals" part, but you haven't offered justification for why the rest of my addition doesn't belong, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I somehow have an ulterior motive. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the content as there seems to be a consensus to include it (even if the wording is eventually changed) and removed the "among other scandals" wording. I also moved the article link earlier in the sentence. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mikayla and Pure the discussion is only 2 days old, when things are obiviously contentious please give it at least a week before deciding on consensus. I believe accusations of racism and antisemitism are such a terrible stain claim, that they need undeniable evidence. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

the accusation is still wholly disputable and highly contentious; the is no real solid evidence that Corbyn is antisemitic. Biographies of living persons are supposed to be written conservatively. This must be especially true in relation to any attempt to put any non neutral abhorrent allegations in the lede
An opinion can't be stated as if it were fact, especially not in the lead. Therefore, these allegations should be treated carefully. RevertBob (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with it being in the lead, mainly because a single paragraph can't do the topic justice, and I can't see a justification for any more than that. Also as the subject is also highly contentious, and there is no proof of the allegations, there are also major WP:BLP issues to consider. G-13114 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we can give Corbyn a stronger defence than is currently in the lede. I would remove the "strongly denied" and "hurtful" parts as both go without saying. I suggested earlier that we use something like: "Corbyn has countered the allegations by pointing to his long record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism both inside and outside parliament. He has said that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism". Burrobert (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
You're implying that his allegations of antisemitism are merely due to his criticism of Israel, but the lead explicitly doesn't say that. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I am giving two of the defences that Corbyn has offered against the allegations. Corbyn does not say that all allegations relate to his criticism of Israel. Burrobert (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The last section of the Lead and the Comment about removal of the Freedom for Humanity mural section are currently inadequate as far as neutrally representing the controversy over the mural. It implies that the mural was certainly antisemitic. Arguments that it was antisemitic depended on the claim that it depicted antisemitic stereotypes. Kalen Ockerman (Mear One), the artist, stated however that those portrayed were real people, the majority of whom were non-Jewish. The latter section links to the article on the Freedom for Humanity mural, which also fails to neutrally cover the subject.     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering the mural was widely compared, including by noted academics in a published setting, to something that could have come out of Nazi propaganda - the opinions of the artist are rather irrelevant. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we might usefully compromise by mentioning in the lede simply that concerns over AS in the party and his behaviour have been raised and that he has responded by addressing the former and denying the latter. This would omit examples and references, which can be in the body of the article. The lede should be a summary, shouldn't it? Jontel (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone keeps inserting incorrect interpretations in this section. One reason is that using examples in the lede is problematic, because they are necessarily selective and because there is insufficent space to summarize events uncontroversially which have multiple interpretations. Can I suggest therefore replacing "Corbyn has faced accusations of antisemitism for his perceived failure to address alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, his criticism of a group of Zionists, and for initially querying the removal of what he later recognised to be a antisemitic mural. In response, Corbyn has asserted his record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism and his commitment to rooting it out in the Labour Party. He has said that criticism of Israel and Zionism is not antisemitism" with the briefer and more general "Corbyn has been criticised for not doing enough to address alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party and for engaging with individuals and events with antisemitic associations. In response, Corbyn has apologised a number of times and asserted his record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism and his commitment to rooting it out in the Labour Party. He has said that criticism of Israel and Zionism is not antisemitism" Does that seem OK? Jontel (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"engaging with individuals and events with antisemitic associations" is a good summary, I'm happy with that. I don't think we should have two sentences defending Corbyn though, and none from his detractors, especially when we could mention Hodge calling him a racist/the Independent Group breakaway. I would be happy with the first two sentences of your proposal. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the last sentence can be dropped. It relates to the dividing line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism which is too complicated to be addressed in a summary on Corbyn, particularly as Corbyn has said that 'Zionist' is now being misused in the UKJontel (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What is that "criticism of a group of Zionists"? Since this is often used as an antisemitic slur, perhaps it would be better to name the group explicitly? If it's referring to Jewish MPs who have objected to antisemitism, then it must definitely be removed. Vashti (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jeremy Corbyn: 'I wanted Hamas to be part of the debate'". Channel 4 News. Retrieved 16 December 2017.
  2. ^ a b JSchindler örg (21 August 2018). "Corbyn's Anti-Semitism Problem Labour Stumbles in Polls as Accusations Mount". Die Spiegel. Retrieved 25 August 2018.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference thejc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Vashti, they were some pro-Israeli activists at a meeting who 'berated' the Palestinian speaker, but the comments have been widely misrepresented. In any case, this potential for misunderstanding and consequent need for explanation is why such examples do not work well in the limited space of the lede, which Iis why I am suggesting a more general formulation. Jontel (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A whole paragraph in the lead devoted to the issue of Corbyn and anti-Semitism is WP:Undue. It warrants a mention, certainly, but not four lines worth of text. Look at the GA-rated Ken Livingstone article for an exemplar of how this lead might better deal with this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that less is more in the lede/lead. Any detail can lead to misinterpretation and dispute and can be covered in the body of the article, of course. We do need to acknowledge the differing reported views. How about just "Corbyn has been accused of failing to recognize or act sufficiently on alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party and elsewhere, but asserts that it is increasingly being addressed." Jontel (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Short and snappy, truthful, neutral and balanced, how about ~ "Corbyn has a long record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism, but since becoming the Labour leader he has been accused of failing to recognize or act sufficiently on alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party and elsewhere, but maintains that it is being addressed but this has been denied.." ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added Jontel's compromise version to the lede. "Corbyn has a long record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism" does not seem to be written neutrally. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Are you saying Corbyn does not have "a long record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism" ...it is backed up by international sources e.g. Der Spiegel and evidence throughout this article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"in the 1970s he [...] involved himself in leftist and anti-war activism"

Midnightblueowl: I added the cn tag for this lead statement because, as I mentioned in the edit summary, I don't see any mention of anti-war activism in the 1970s in the body. Is it there? If not, please restore the tag or suggest a rewording. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddie and thanks for your message. Specifically, I was thinking of the text that refers to him being involved in the CND during that period. I'm not sure that it's covered in great detail in the article (this article certainly needs a lot of work!) but if you think "anti-nuclear" would be preferable we could always go for that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
CND's mentioned in the lead for the 1980s. In fact, I don't see that in the body either (it goes from 1960s membership to 2010s, unless, again, I can't see it). But CND isn't anti-war as such, so we shouldn't assert that 1970s anti-war chronology in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Image of Facebook post

It would be good if someone with the right skills/knowledge could add a screenshot of Mear One’s original Facebook post, subject to copyright. There are lots of examples from Berger’s screen capture. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43523445 Then people could take a view as to how easy it was for Corbyn to ‘read’ the faces when the faces make up only a small proportion of the artwork and when the artwork would presumably be seen as a ¼ screen image on a 2012 size mobile phone. Interesting that Berger felt she had to crop and blow up the image before sharing it, so she must have felt that it was not that clear. Of course, we cannot go back to Corbyn’s unprepared mind state of not knowing that antisemitism was an issue with the artwork when he received the post on Facebook, why is why he asked why it was being removed, and so not looking for it. Jontel (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mear One's Facebook page is here. Winding back a long way would display the original post unless it has been deleted or edited. The mural has been referred to on Wikipedia as "Freedom for Humanity". Mear One's actual title appears to have been "False Profits". He has a YouTube channel showing videos about his work, including one of the mural in question being created. [3][4][5]     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This 02 October 2012 Facebook post looks like the relevant one. Jeremy Corbyn's comment is still there (it got 13 Likes), as is Yvonne Ridley's, which it follows (my guess is that Yvonne Ridley's comment was what drew Corbyn's attention to the posting).     ←   ZScarpia   11:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mear One calls it "Freedom for Humanity" on his website http://mearone.com/projects/httpmearone-comwp-contentuploads201607freedom-for-humanity_small-jpg/ and his facebook page. "I painted my "Freedom for Humanity" mural in East London ". https://www.facebook.com/290156246477/videos/10155623221901478/ Perhaps False Profits is his name for the video of its creation. Jontel (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the image in any detail - is this the same for anyone else? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is blurred. Wikipedia limited me to 100k pixels, so this was the best I could do for now. If anyone is good at image management, I took it from a sharp original here https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5885339/jeremy-corbyn-fury-anti-semitic-art/ . Anyone is welcome to upload a better version but need to use the whole image without cropping it. Jontel (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 23:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I have uploaded another version. It is not perfect, but the text is legible now. Jontel (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this image is particularly helpful, the text is already in the article body and the image is not clearly visible. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I felt it was helpful in demonstrating why Corbyn may not have noticed that two of the figures were stereotypically Jewish. It has been used in several news publications. The image has been reproduced at about the size one would see it on a mobile phone. The image of the mural is a fraction of that. The heads are a small fraction of the mural. I agree that it would be better if the image was sharper. I took it from the Sun link on the article, so by all means, make it sharper if you can. Jontel (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think he was viewing it on a mobile screen? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Organisation of the February 2003 protest?

I notice that the statement "He helped organise the February anti-Iraq War protest which was claimed to be the largest such protest in British political history" in section 3.2.1 isn't sourced. While this is likely true, what is the source for it? Vashti (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I see lots of sourcing that he spoke and attended it, like here, but can't find "organized." Maybe we just say that? ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I had already changed it to say that he spoke at the protest. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

anti -semitism

OK this section is now way over the top for a BLP article. We need to get to a summary level here then either create a separate article for Corbyn or accept the main article link. I'm inclined to the view that it is notable enough to justify its own article -----Snowded TALK 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would support such an article - I suspect it will be hard to find a neutral title though! Links of Jeremy Corbyn to antisemitism perhaps? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of commonality between this section and Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Some of the content is almost exactly the same. The time period of 2015 onwards is the same for both. The underlying issue of sympathy for the Palestinians on the left, especially after the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is the same for Corbyn and the other politicians and activists who have been targeted. The tactics used against him and these others have been the same. With Corbyn as leader, he is anyway held accountable by critics for AitLP, either through his action or inaction. So, I think moving this section to AitLP and leaving a summary on his BLP is the most helpful for understanding developments and presenting a single clear and consistent rendering. A separate article would just be aiding the smear. Jontel (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Trimming antisemitism section

I think the addition of EDMs with primary sources only is a bit too much - there are currently 8 EDMs supported only by primary sources. I will remove these if others agree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they go straight to the issue of the false allegations that Corbyn is indifferent to antisemitism. There is nothing wrong with using a primary source of the information is incontrovertible, as it is in this case. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD As I have just added some, I am happy to summarize them. Jontel (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No one is disputing that Corbyn signed the EDMs, the question is whether it is WP:UNDUE to include so many of them, each with their own separate sentence, when they are only sourced with primary sources. The alternative would be to say "Corbyn has signed many EDMs opposing antisemitism." and include only the ones which are notable enough to be mentioned in secondary sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It may be that not all have been publicized, but I see your point and have cut it back to under four lines, which I hope is a sufficient reduction. Jontel (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
EDMs should not be included at all (there are simply so many EDMs - that just choosing what to include based on primary, at the time, or non-RS criteria - is WP:OR by itself) - unless you have a WP:SECONDARY source discussing them some time removed from the EDM itself (e.g. a 2004 EDM discussed in 2016). Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Really, we shouldn't even have a section on allegations of anti-Semitism, let alone one that is this long. It's WP:UNDUE. Material on said accusations should be worked into the main body of the text. Ken Livingstone has also been accused of anti-Semitism, and Boris Johnston of racism more broadly, but neither feature whole sections on the subject in their respective articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hardly undue. It's one of the defining features of his leadership. Vashti (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It's undue in the form it presently takes, i.e. a sub-section devoted to the subject slumped towards the end of the article. It should be incorporated more seamlessly into the main body of the article, as the articles I cited to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite the best efforts of his critics, the material here is fairly trivial: a phrase here or there which have been subjectively interpreted and his presence at events, the significance of which is disputed. Moreover, it is incomplete: there is more about him in Antisemitism in the Labour Party. The real story about Corbyn on the issue is around his leadership of his party, which is covered on that page, too. So, I think it would work to move this material there and reference it more briefly here with a link to it. I’d be happy to do this if we agree. Jontel (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I would support that move. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 15#Corbyn's voting record for a discussion on EDMs. EddieHugh (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the primary sources. Jontel (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding antisemitism in the Labour Party, the case is made that it has been enabled by inaction on the part of Corbyn and that he has not acted on it sufficiently because he is insensitive to it e.g. "The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council together asserted that the episode (mural) was an example supporting the idea that Corbyn "never sees or understands antisemitism"". Moving the Corbyn material on AS to the AitLP article would enable that important contention to be clearly made. Jontel (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need to move the content to enable that contention to be made? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said 'more clearly made' if the detail of Corbyn and AS, and the LP and AS, were in the same article. Jontel (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::: I have done a summarisation to reduce space as discussed above, but pretty much everything is still on this page or the AitLP page. A remaining characteristic is Corbyn's criticised actions before he became leader, which are on both pages. Can we agree that the primary presentation of these are either on the Corbyn page or the AitLP page, with a summary on the other page, to reduce text? Jontel (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Meer One Facebook post

Hi,

The mural post image was deleted. It was used in several media as it speaks to how easy it is to recognize that two of the eight bankers are identifiably Jewish when one is not looking for this. The arguments for deletion do not seem persuasive to me.

[User:Hullabaloo Wolfowitz]

Jeremy Corbyn‎; 20:07 -109‎ ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz talk contribs‎ (→‎Freedom for Humanity mural: fails NFCC#1, #8)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria

  1. 1 No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
If there is a free equivalent, where is it?
  1. 8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
It demonstrates the the ease or otherwise of recognizing intended ethnicity.

Can we continue to have it?

Thanks Jontel (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"It was used in several media as it speaks to how easy it is to recognize that two of the eight bankers are identifiably Jewish when one is not looking for this." Do any reliable sources mention this? I don't see how adding a blurry image helps the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It illustrates the section, as the section is only about the Facebook post, Corbyn's reaction to it and Berger's complaint about that reaction. The image is used in a number of RS. Similarly, there is an image of the mural in that article. Jontel (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I very much doubt that we could put together a fair use tag that would apply to the image's use on this particular article. It might be possible, however, to formulate such a tag should the image be used on a separate article about the mural itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Der Spiegel/ New York Times on antisemitism

These papers do not seem to be saying anything different from UK commentators: they are just vaguer and further away. I'm not sure what they contribute? Jontel (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the talk page rather than deleting it under the edit summary of "tightening". They are useful because many in the UK would argue that British papers are biased and too close to the parties to have a neutral view - having the view of those further afield allows a more balanced summary. Not to mention that it firstly shows how much traction this issue is getting and secondly will be important if Corbyn becomes PM if foreign countries think he has an issue with antisemitism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see that it would have been more transparent and useful for me to have proposed deleting these as a separate action from the tightening exercise - I was in two minds about that at the time - sorry. I did not see what they were adding but I understand the points you make, which I had not considered. Jontel (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that, "following incidents of antisemitism "has done little to stem the tide and has even made the problem worse at times", dividing his supporters," isn't a fair representation of what the Spiegel article says.     ←   ZScarpia   11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Der Spiegel says "Since then, hardly a week has gone by without additional reports of incidents of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Corbyn has done little to stem the tide and has even made the problem worse at times" - the above is a good paraphrase. Both NYT and Der Spiegel are much better than UK sources - UK sources all have a dog in the political fight here - whereas premier international sources (which NYT and DS are) - are better for NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That is not Der Spiegel. It is Jörg Schindler. The rest of the article is not used, though it states:

For his part, Corbyn may have underestimated how many enemies he had -- not just within his own party, but also among the overwhelmingly conservative British press. Newspaper editors couldn't imagine a socialist moving into 10 Downing Street, so large-circulation papers began portraying Corbyn as a naive pacifist who maintained positive relations with blackballed groups like Hezbollah and the IRA. Ahead of parliamentary elections last year, yellow press rags like the Daily Mail and the Sun published long pieces claiming that Corbyn has links to terrorism. It didn't work: Labour ended up with 40 percent of the vote, the party's best result in years.

In short Schindler is contextualizing this in terms of a newspaper environment he characterizes as extremely conservative, and one in which Corbyn, before the anti-Semitic ploy began, had suffered exactly the same treatment from the 'yellow press rags' regarding his links to terrorism (per Hezbollah/IRA). All that changed is the topic. Antisemitism replaced terrorism, Palestinians are substituted for Hezbollah and the IRA, but the scheme of character assassination by innuendo perdured. That is one implication in Schindler's piece. We can't say that, but any secondary source reviewing this stuff eventually would note, per Schindler and others, that the anti-Semitism outcry is very much a piece with earlier attempts to blacken Corbyn's name in the eyes of the public.

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.(WP:RS?)

Ferrer is known for two things, writing the ballistic hyperbole that Corbyn represents an 'existential threat' to British Jews, and
stating that (Corbyn) " isn't an anti-Semite, but a friend to anti-Semites."
which is sub-low brow. Any friend of anti-Semites is, certainly not only by my definition, ipso facto anti-Semitic. (idem with 'He's not a Nazi, but has many Nazi friends'/'he's not a racist but has many racist friends'/'he's not a murderer but has many friends who are'/or in the classic moronic qui s'excuse s'accuse rhetorical gambit :'I am not antisemitic, I have many Jewish friends')
For Ferrer, who starting the most recent bout of hysterical screaming, Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. For Margaret Hodge, Corbyn is a "fucking anti-Semite and a racist." (thus der Spiegel, but we don't quote that).
In short, you can play infinite games touting snippets and sound-bites of sensationalist reportage in newspapers competing for boosts to circulation. It is far more difficult to get sucked into this game if one exercises patience, and sees what meta-analysis (scholarship, media studies etc.) make of the raucous hullaballoo of press politicking.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit is an attempt to better reflect what the Spiegel article says.     ←   ZScarpia   02:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [and here's a Mondoweiss article which contains an alternative 'international' view of the crisis: Jeff Handmaker -Unfounded allegations of anti-Semitism cover up Israeli apartheid, 04 March 2019)

Removing Frank Field

I would like to propose that we remove the resignation of Frank Field from the antisemitism section of this page, as I do not think it is sufficiently linked to Corbyn. A month before he resigned, Field's constituency party voted that they had no confidence in him, after he voted with the government in a Brexit vote. His resignation letter has one paragraph on antisemitism and five on his problems with local party members. Commentators judge that "he jumped before he was pushed". While he does mention Corbyn's past allegedly antisemitic statements and actions, the reason he gives for resigning is "an erosion of core values" and that "we are increasingly being seen as a racist party" i.e. that his issue is with the Labour Party and its leadership as a whole. His resignation is already mentioned in the Antisemitism in the Labour Party article. Can we remove it from this one? Jontel (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Which commentators are you referring to? I don't see anyone saying that in the three articles sourced in the article, apart from Labour sources and MPs, who aren't exactly unbiased commentators! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Here [6] and here [7], which support the evidence of the no confidence vote and the balance of his own letter about the principal motivation for his departure. Even if antisemitism is a contributory factor, his letter references changes in the Labour Party more than Corbyn per se. Jontel (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Atef Bseiso

In August 2018, the Daily Mail reported, with pictorial evidence, that during the event, Corbyn had also been present at a wreath-laying at the graves of Salah Khalaf and Atef Bseiso,[1] both of whom are thought to have been key members of the Black September Organization behind the 1972 Munich massacre.[2] The Jerusalem Post commented: "In another photo, Corbyn is seen close to the grave of terrorist Atef Bseiso, intelligence chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Bseiso is also linked to the massacre."[3] There was condemnation from some of the British press, as well as from some members of the Labour Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[4] A Labour spokesperson said that the "a wreath was laid on behalf of those at the conference to all those who lost their lives, including families and children".[5]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBCWreath was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Sabbagh, Dan (14 August 2018). "Jeremy Corbyn: I was present at wreath-laying but don't think I was involved". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 August 2018.
  3. ^ Sharon, Jeremy (12 August 2018). "Labour Leader Corbyn Photographed Laying Wreath For Munich Terrorists". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
  4. ^ Kentish, Benjamin. "Benjamin Netanyahu says Jeremy Corbyn deserves 'unequivocal condemnation' for attending memorial to Munich terrorists". The Independent. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
  5. ^ "FactCheck: Jeremy Corbyn and the wreath row". channel4.com.

This is documented from junk reportage, which gets certainly one key fact wrong. I wrote up the Atef Bseiso page where all the evidence shows he was never associated with the Munich Massacre, and was killed, much to the surprise of Mossad, by Israeli politicians going over the heads of their intelligence services. Both Bseiso and Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf) were for over a decade key intelligence assets supplying crucial details on Arab terrorists for the CIA and the Western European intelligence services before their assassinations. Salah Khalaf certainly played a key role in planning what turned out to be a massacre in Munich, nonetheless. Whatever the stupid sources say, being photographed near Bseiso's tomb, has no political implications whatsoever. Even Mossad had long taken him off their hit list. Another good example of not exercising judgement before being caught up in the media frenzy of slipshod journalism. Onbe should know something independently of the topic and the background of people mentioned before just summarizing whatever google tosses out. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSes - in this case the entire UK media, Israeli media, and some media elsewhere - e.g. the US - would disagree with your assertion above. We follow sources - and sources on Corbyn clearly see this as relevant and with political implications. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyone consciously introducing opinions that are strongly contradicted by other RS, as if their presence in some RS established them as 'facts' and justified them being palmed off as such, is not on Wikipedia to write neutrally. No serious editor 'follow sources' blindly. They are, per any number of core principles, obliged to see all angles, exercise judgement, and even excise material known to be misleading or false.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:Undue

By my calculation, the Israel/Palestinian/anti-Semitism material comprises 21% of the page. Can the biography of a major political figure be stacked by matter on a single issue that constitutes a fifth of the coverage, esp. when it is all allegations and spin, pro or contra? Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there are any sections which you think should be added to? I've just made a very small trim to the section, but I think it's pretty much as trimmed as it can be given how much coverage it has received in reliable sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Might the solution be to summarize this AS material heavily here but explicitly link it to the Antisemitism in the Labour Party where the Corbyn material already there can be expanded to include the material here that it does not have? RS tend to say that Corbyn is central to AS in the LP, even if just as an enabler, so there is a logic to making him a significant part of that article. And, if all the detail is there, it does not also have to be here. Jontel (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Coverage is 95% WP:Recentism. Any editor should know that any public figure taking a critical position on issues regarding Israel will have generated around that a huge volume of commentary, sieving it for possible anti-Semitism. This happened to Jimmy Carter.Any google search for those unfamiliar with his record will show a vast potential documentation on this allegation in Carter's regard. This gets zero coverage in his wiki bio, and rightly so in that case, since it was part of an intense lobbying effort to discredit his known views, comparable to those of Corbyn. What is said of the one can be said of the other so far: 'There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves'(Mearsheimer and Walt 2007 p.193). Carter's various remarks, we know historically, have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. By contrast take Richard Nixon, a person with a deep record for making antisemitic quips (amply documented if defensively by Carl Freedman’s The Age of Nixon: A Study in Cultural Power, John Hunt Publishing 2012 pp.108-125, to cite just one example). Yet our wiki bio has zero mention of this as well (one mention of Jews). In Nixon's case, I would argue that a few lines should certainly register what is extremely well documented and not alleged.
The coverage here is definitely way undue, and definitely suffers from the bias of WP:Recentism. As to how to handle it, I leave that to editors of this page. But as it stands, it is an intolerable misuse of Wikipedia to spread insinuations (no smoke without fire). The only appropriate way to deal with this is through high quality secondary sources that analyse the infinite pile of newspaper blogging, whatever those conclusions may turn out to be. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The coverage would perhaps be better balanced if the entire section on "Allegations of antisemitism" were to be prefixed by several blank pages to reflect the 32 years he spent as an MP before he was elected leader of the Labour Party, though I'm sure that has nothing to do with the allegations. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would agree, there is nothing definitively tying him with antisemitism, just a lot of trivia, innuendo, insinuations, hyperbole, and guilt by association tactics, all of it produced by his political enemies inside and out of the Labour Party. Would you know of any high quality secondary sources to use Nishidani? G-13114 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wp:undue about the amount of Israel-Palestinian-anti-semitism information on the page, given that an (at least) equivalent percentage of the daily press coverage of Corbyn is similarly wp:balanced. These issues also account for a large part of his wp:notability. If anything, these issues are actually under-represented on his wiki page relative to the mainstream media coverage generated daily.

I agree, mainstream sources are heavily reporting this and we should not whitewash it. Whether you believe them or not, Frank Field and the eight TIG MPs who left Labour blamed what they saw as Corbyn's associations with antisemitism and so we should give a reasonable amount of detail in this article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I said nothing about whitewashing or censoring what labour MPs assert. I said 20% of Corbyn's life is not about the I/P conflict or his attitude, whatever that might be, to Jews. Those who are maintaining that volume here are in violation of basic wiki principles.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Much more than 20% of his role as Labour leader (2015-present - four years now) - his most significant post to date - has been devoted to the antisemitism crisis - this is the single most topic he is covered for as leader. His prior career? Prior to becoming leader, he was a backbencher (one of 650 MPs - and backbencher MPs do not get much coverage - much of it is local to their constituency - for Corbyn - Islington Gazette). Donald Trump, unlike Corbyn, had a high profile career prior to being elected (a bit after Corbyn) - yet we devote most of the page there to his election and presidency. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That only corroborates my point, since to spin the four years Corbyn has been leader as in large part an issue regarding rumour-mongering imputing anti-Semitism to him and his party is blatently WP:Undue. You cited Donald Trump. Well, compare that page to Corbyn's on the issue of Jews and anti-Semitism.
There is zero mention on Trump's page of her view he is an enabler of antisemitism, one that is widely shared (here, here, or here. I could do on but the simple fact is
Trump moved his embassy to Jerusalem, and is accepted as a strategic friend of Israel. Corbyn would recognize a state of Palestine and is critical of Israel's occupation. So certain editors don't flock to Trump's article on this issue, they do to Corbyn's. Trump has done Netanyahu's Israel favours, so the anti-Semitic enabling record is ignored. Corbyn has been critical and therefore the enabling record is blown up out of all proportion. The same goes for Hungary which has the repute of having a very significant minority of anti-Semites, and its president Viktor Orbán has been repeatedly accused of being an enabler of anti-Semitism (here, here, and here). The wiki article shows no trace of this. Orbán, in Netanyahu's official view, is a friend of Israel. If you are a strong ally of Israel, your wiki article won't give you the kind of treatment handed out to Corbyn. It's political intrusiveness manipulating an encyclopedia ostensibly committed to neutrality. This appears to be all about trying, via Wikipedia, to influence a future election but making the issue of political representation depend on a single ethnic question. What is the candidate's position regarding Jews or anti-Semitism (forget racism and every other form of contempt for 6,000 other ethnic communities in the world). Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Trump's racial views are pretty well covered, both in his own article and at Racial views of Donald Trump. If you want to add a section to Racial views of Donald Trump on antisemitism I would support it. It doesn't suprise me that editors (who I think are mostly British) would focus on a British politician rather than an American or Hungarian one and I don't see how it's relevant here. Feel free to make a suggestion for how to improve this article by trimming specific content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Again you are responding without reading what I wrote,I compared the Donald Trump page vs the Jeremy Corbyn page. Trump's 'enabling' of anti-Semitic groups is not mentioned on the main wikibio page. The suggestion Corbyn is anti-Semitic, or enables anti-Semitism occupies 20% of his wiki bio. This notwithstanding the fact that Trump's racist, anti-Semitic or otherwise, is objectively documented, whereas Corbyn's documented life-long opposition to racism is buried under a mass of conjecture that he enables or is sympathetic to the most vicious variety of racism in recent European history, anti-Semitism. The difference stands out like dogs' knackers. Not only British readers edit this page, and though the Trump or Orban pages are edited mainly by people with links to those countries, in neither case do those editors consider the abundant evidence on this topic relevant to the biographies. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Regarding the acceptance of antisemitism if it is not anti-Israeli (and also for the detail about an attempt to do some ethnic cleansing after the 7-Day War), I thought you might find the following interesting: +972 Mag - Eitay Mack - 'We hope the regime lasts': When Israel enjoyed cozy ties with Brazil's military dictatorship, 18 November 2018: Following the 1967 war, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol came up with and examined a plan to foment the “emigration of Arab residents from the disputed territories to Brazil.” After talks with the Israeli embassy in Brazil, Eshkol wrote on August 8, 1967: “These talks give me reason to believe that with intensive efforts, thousands, if not tens of thousands of Arab families, especially from the Gaza Strip, could emigrate to Brazil.” ... Similar to Israel’s relationships with Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, and Argentina, its ties with Brazil were not shaken by allegations of anti-Semitism, nor by the fact that Nazis who fled Europe following World War II were living in the country. In 1967, Brazil appointed Miera Pena to serve as the Brazilian ambassador to Israel, despite the fact that both Israel’s foreign and defense ministries suspected he was a Nazi.     ←   ZScarpia   17:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that the scale and level of coverage given to this single issue is blatantly WP:Undue and a classic case of WP:Recentism. It needs to be trimmed back substantially. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

We could trim down the relatively long quotes in the "Supportive" subsection. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the contents of the four supportive comments are distinct and make important points, particularly as some address the mdia's role. They face eleven negative comments and the generally hostile reporting of events, so are needed for balance. Words and spaces can be trimmed here and there in the other AS sections. Also, I do think the hostile comments which are not attached to specific events often don't add much. Jontel (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the article as it was before he ran for the leadership in 2015: it's easy to see that almost the entire current article is recent, but that's a reflection of what's available in sources, and is different from recentism. Sure, what's of interest to readers now probably won't be the same as what's of interest to readers in 10 years' time, and the level of detail will gradually reduce as a result. But current length can be reduced without cutting coverage. With recent controversial events, a lot gets added and not much gets taken away. The result is a mishmash of summary, accusation, denial, and responses of others, often using quotations. For example, the "English irony" section is a quotefest that somehow manages to avoid a key point (that Corbyn's comments were seen as labelling British Jews as not really British): just describe what happened and why it mattered. Another: the para starting "In April 2018, 42 senior academics..." could be cut to its first sentence only (and even that could be paraphrased). "Facebook groups" could be reduced to one or two sentences, as the three examples given are near-identical. And so on: cut length without cutting coverage of the topic itself. EddieHugh (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that beyond that, there are WP:MEAT and WP:SOAPBOX issues here. This page had no mention of anti-semitism prior to Yair Rosenberg highlighting it in a March 2018 article (linked up top.) While that was a problem, and the topic clearly needed to be covered, it's also clear that that article attracted a lot of people whose sole interest in the page was expanding on that issue and whose primary knowledge of Corbyn was via that controversy - you can see as much going over the article history starting from that date. Obviously that's going to be a recipe for a bloated section. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, how did you calculate your 21% figure? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

the Israel/Palestinian/anti-Semitism material comprises 21% of the page

I've just rechecked, though in the intervening time several edits changed things so that you get a slightly different result. That result was obtained simply by (a) looking at the overall page size statistics, (b() stripping the relevant texts of all refs, and putting them through a word counter. I.e.
  • The page size statistics arer 75 kB (12608 words) "readable prose size"
    Lead: 43 words
    The Israel/Palestine section+the Tunisia Controversy sections amount to 758 words 4,832 characters
    The antisemitism section gives 1,537 words 10,149 characters
Total 2338, which is 18.5 % of 12,608. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_18&oldid=912879576"