Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

An alternative version of the antisemitism section

I appreciate User:Nishidani for proposing a more concise and coherent version. As views are split on additions and deletions in his version, compared with the original, I am taking the liberty of proposing an alternative which is more closely based on the original, albeit highly condensed and omitting direct quotes. I won't ask for a vote immediately, just suggestions for improvements, which I will seek to incorporate. I hope this is helpful. Jontel (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

V2.1

Lede

Corbyn commissioned the Chakrabarti Inquiry into antisemitism and other forms of racism within the party, and supported changes to disciplinary rules and procedures to address the issue. Leading Jewish bodies have said that he has not done enough to ensure that the party promptly addresses allegations against individuals.

Section

Leading British Jewish organisations and publications have challenged Corbyn, since he became Labour leader, on antisemitism: notably, some of his past associations and comments, as well as his handling of allegations within the party, notwithstanding his record of supporting Jews against racism. The associations included hosting a meeting with Hajo Meyer on "The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes", attending "two or three" of Deir Yassin Remembered's annual London commemorations by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen, and being a member of several mainly pro-Palestinian online discussion groups containing antisemitic posts.

Corbyn has responded that he was either unaware of antisemitic sentiments at the time, in the case of Eisen and the Facebook groups, or had associated with people with whom he disagreed in pursuit of peace and justice in the Middle East, in the case of Meyer and others. Regarding other allegations, he said he had not initially recognised, on social media, apparently antisemitic tropes in a mural, Freedom for Humanity, and that he was referring to specific pro-Israeli campaigners rather than to Zionists or Jews in general when he said that Zionists at a meeting did not study history or understand English irony. His defenders have cited his record of defending Jews against racism: he organised a demonstration against a 1970s National Front march through Wood Green, was national secretary of Anti-Fascist Action, spoke on the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street against a fascist march, noting his mother was one of the protestors, and signed numerous Early Day Motions condemning antisemitism. He has visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto, calling it a reminder of the dangers of far-right politics, antisemitism and racism. His defenders have also criticised the tactics of opponents and the role of the media.

Corbyn commissioned the Chakrabarti Inquiry into antisemitism and other forms of racism within the party, and supported changes to disciplinary rules and procedures to address the issue. Leading Jewish bodies have said that he has not done enough to ensure that the party promptly addresses allegations against individuals. A September 2018 poll found that 86% of British Jews and 39% of the British public believed Corbyn to be antisemitic.

I think that the text for the main body is a significant improvement from the previous attempt and will try and work with you to improve it. First, there is a typo - "certain of his statements" doesn't make sense. I suggest changing this part to "notably, some of his past associations and statements, as well as his handling of allegations within the party," which is slightly shorter.

If we're making a large trim, I don't see why we should keep that the DYR commemorations were annual, in London or that Eisen was his constituent. "he received on social media" doesn't make sense in the middle paragraph. Finally, I don't think that a visit to the Theresienstadt Ghetto counts as defending Jews against racism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks: I have responded to the comments in this revision, though keeping but minimising some detail, which I think aids understanding of what happened. Jontel (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Right off the bat I see a difference between a "large majority of British Jews see Corbyn as antisemitic" and "over 85% see him as antisemitic" which is what the sources say. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think words are easier than stats, but I am keeping the same meaning. I have changed large to great Jontel (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "overwhelming majority"? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that the it's referencing a poll (giving us the luxury of having data available), I see no need to use language that may be potentially misinterpreted. "A September 2018 poll found that 85% of British Jews and __% of the British public believed Corbyn to be antisemitic. Domeditrix (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, fine. I've replaced words with numbers (v2.1). Jontel (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, if no-one has any more changes to suggest to this draft, shall I put it to the vote or should I just make the change in the article? Thanks, Jontel (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to add something about Raed Salah, and I think the lede is far better currently than the proposed version. Finally we should also mention that Chakrabarti was made a peer shortly after the inquiry. I think the proposed body and lede changes should be put to a separate vote. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I will leave the lede out of this, then. The facts and inclusion of Salah and Chakrabarti's peerage are contested, I feel, so would like to leave them for later discussion at this stage, as they would need extra discussion. I will put the draft to a vote. Jontel (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

An article by Asa Winstanley including a defence of Salah. Although not reliable for anything except Winstanley's views. it may be used to locate conventional reliable sources. If you want to raise Chakrabarti's peerage, you should point out who the others involved in the inquiry were ("Jan Royall, who was at the time holding an investigation into antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club, and Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism David Feldman") and what were its findings.     ←   ZScarpia   17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on proposed changes

Should we change the antisemitism section as proposed below? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishdani has proposed the following replacement for the "Allegations of antisemitism" section. See above for prior discussions.

Refactored RFC to link to a diff for readability purposes. --Aquillion (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose I do not think we should make the change. The proposed version leaves out Corbyn being a member of three Facebook groups with antisemitic content and the fact that Paul Eisen's views were widely known before the DYR meeting. It also removes the analysis of the international newspapers, which are generally better sources as they are removed from the situation. Not to mention the inclusion of the 0.1% of Labour members statistic (which should explain more clearly that it relates to complaints in a single year) without mentioning the equalities watchdog launching an investigation into Labour (the main subject of the article). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change, albeit with some tweaks (eg. removing / replacing the architectsforsocialhousing cite mentioned above.) Overall this is an improvement; the current version places WP:UNDUE weight on relatively obscure events and fixates on a blow-by-blow of breaking news in a way that made it hard to read. Similarly, I strongly disagree that listing every analysis from every major paper or commentator that weighed in is appropriate in a WP:BLP of this size and scope; we should summarize the broad views and the major events that lead to them. An encyclopedia is a broad summary, not an exhaustive in-depth examination of every possible point. Allowing for those analyses and minutiae to flood the section effectively turned it into an unreadable mess where editors pulled out comparatively-obscure news items or bits of commentary in a way that made it unreadable to people just looking to get a sense of what that facet of the topic was actually about. This rewrite clearly emphasizes the important aspects and gives readers an essential overview of the topic, making it a vast improvement over the unreadable mess of partisan squabbling it replaced. There's still lots of room for improvement and refinement, but this proposed replacement is the sort of model we should shoot for going forwards and should be the basis we build on from here. -- Aquillion (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. (a) 18% of the article is about Corbyn and anti-Semitism or Israel, vastly Undue. (b)The sections as they exist are, as Aquillion notes, a scratchy and unkempt pastiche reflecting tit-for-tat editing, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (c) The proper procedure was employed WP:Consensus, and the provisory result, given almost two weeks for discussion for any specific concerns, was immediastely reverted by one of two people who disliked it, a minority compared to the several who either wrote it or asked for adjustments (satisfied). The revert and discuss was therefore technically improper, for it assumes a minority dissent can revert out what a majority did not appear to object to. (d) The obvious option of tweaking the new text according to one's lights was ignored. Reverting in this way is typically work-shy. (e) I don't care how this is done, or who does it, but the passage has to be written, synthesis-style, along the lines indicated, and those who revert while refusing to give their alternative version of how this necessary task might be done, are not editing consensually.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think there are problems with the current text, but its a reasonable compromise for the most part. I suspect my changes would be quite different to yours! For example, replacing the DYR subsection with

Up to 2013, Corbyn attended "Deir Yassin Remembered" events, which were organised by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen. Corbyn said that he had not been aware of Eisen's views when he attended the events, which commemorated the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians. It was reported that Eisen's views were known in 2005 and that he had written an article in 2008 entitled "My life as a Holocaust denier".

This states the issue in the first sentence without any of the extraneous details, which can be added later. This is one issue I have with the content here - it gives far too much background information in the first sentences of the paragraph before getting to the actual issue. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The use extensive use of architectsforsocialhousing.wpcomstaging.com - a wordpress blog (written by Simon Elmer - who job title at architectsforsocialhousing is "Commissar for Counter-Propaganda"[1][2]) - is a red flag BLP vio. Additional sources are problematic too. There are severe NPOV and FRINGE problems with the proposed version that are simply way too long to enumerate. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I.e. the usual smearing 'dig-into-their-and find-dirt to discredit ploy. The issue here is expertise. Mear One did a mural, so it is art on a London landscape. The most informed analysis we have so far is Simon Elmer's. Who is he, not some blogging jerk from the fringe, but someone competent in art interpretation, and within an urban context.

he did a Phd on The Colour of the Sacred: Georges Bataille and the Image of Sacrifice Doctoral thesis, University College, London 2002

He is cited in several quality books on both dimensions:

• Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing (ASH,2016) , a London-based architectural practice committed to recognizing the architectural and social merits of London’s council estates, as well as challenging their accelerating demolition,’ Paul Watt, Peer Smets (eds.), Social Housing and Urban Renewal: A Cross-National Perspective Emerald Group Publishing, 2017 9781787149106 p.471

• ASH consists of a broad collective of Londoners, from filmmakers to academics Karen Kubey (ed). Housing as Intervention: Architecture towards social equity. Wiley & Sons, 2018 9781119337843 p.40

• Anna Minton Big Capital: Who Is London For? Penguin UK, 2017 9780141985008

• Christopher Green, Picasso: Architecture and Vertigo. Yale University Press, 2005 9780300104127 pp.viii,252 n.68 for his competence in art.

• Simon Elmer is a poet, writer, photographer, propagandist, Dadaist and cyclist. In a previous life he was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (Professor in the Art History department at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), and has taught at the universities of London, Manchester, Reading and Roehampton

• Working class warriors? No, middle-class spongers and so- called academics Daily Mail 3 October 2015 Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)~

Elmer is self published. He's not an expert of antisemitism. We have published academic writing on the Mural (e.g. Lipstadt). We have numerous news orgs commenting on the mural, including quoting experts. We have a multitude of sources - we do not need a blog. Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Very little newspaper reportage here cites experts on anti-Semitism. Lipstadt has no background in how to interpret a piece of art. What news orgs provide a detailed account from informed art experts of how that mural can be interpreted? None I can see.

Please for the nth time. Do not keep repeating your one liners, while ignoring or sidestepping the evidence that contradicts your assertions. This bad practice was condemned by Shakespeare:'I am Sir Oracle,. And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark'.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Referring to this as a piece of art is quite offensive. The artistic qualities, or lack thereof, of the mural are irrelevant to the political scandal. The sole issue here that is relevant to the scandal is the antisemitism angle.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I support the principle of making the section shorter, omitting subheadings and paraphrasing rather than quotes. I think it is harder to agree a consensus wording and we need an explicit agreed process for this. Jontel (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I support the improvement of the article by tidying up the current overlong running~news~event~dogfight of a section, by replacing it with a more encyclopedic NPOV synthesis as proposed by Nishidani or some similar tweak improved variation, and agree with comments of Jontel and Aquillion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It is really difficult to compress my various issues with this into an intelligible comment, but I'll just use one example. We have Party statistics about complaints of anti-Semitism in the ranks (April 2018-March 2019) indicate they relate to roughly 0.1% of the membership -- this is a total red-herring comment. Issues with this one sentence alone: (1) it is implying in Wikipedia's voice (already an NPOV violation) that internal Labour party statistics about complaints (most experience of antisemitism goes on unreported-- RS studies can be used to confirm this), (2) it is implying that internal Labour party stats are sources that are reliable on this issue (dubious), (3) the prose regarding the 0.1% stat is ridiculous as it implies one must be an antisemitic harasser in order to be antisemitic. The rest of it, I feel, betrays the same pattern of problematic use of Wikipedia's voice.--Calthinus (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's perplexing. I just summed up mainly what I found on the page, drafted by other editors. The sentence in question is not a 'comment' in wiki's voice. It's per a source, and attributed to internal Labour Party statistics. The other two objections descend into pure speculation: yes, one can be a racist without saying so; yes, 99% of all racist comments go unreported (true of all faiths. 300,000,000 Christians report incidents of persecution annually, but that figure doesn't include all verbal harassment, or daily shows of contempt. I don't think my life in a Protestatnt majority community, with its stone-throwing at Micks, or chiakking abusively every time you passed as a child one of their school grounds, or systematic refusal by the council to allow Catholic businesses to compete, ever got registered, or caused massive panic). We underuse here a really first class paper of statistical analysis by Daniel Staetsky, whose results contradict a large amount of what our basic sources, newspapers, relate. That is by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. One would wish the Labour party's internal analysis showed similar acumen, comprehensiveness, statistical charts etc. It doesn't unfortunately, but that is no reason for discriminating diffidence about reporting their version of the statistical evidence.

In my small nook in the woods, I hear on average several slurs against four ethnicities ethnicities from your average joe-blows weekly. It's par for the course for most ethnic minorities, never indexed as this case is, where at least we have intense focus on statistics, by all parties to the dispute.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't personal, I don't care who wrote it -- I don't think it is optimal for the reasons which still stand which I brought up. Okay so Labour internal versus Labour commissioned -- whatever, it is frankly ridiculous to use statistics on complaints to ascertain what percent of Labour "membership" is "related to" by the antisemitism controversy -- whoever wrote that, it has no place in the main space as it is absurdly POV and actually just ridiculous. The rest of this is all interesting but should take place on talk pages not in the middle of an RfC that needs to be eventually closed by some poor sleep deprived soul who may or may not wake up with talk page fallout.--Calthinus (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically your objection is this.

Party statistics about complaints of anti-Semitism in the ranks (April 2018-March 2019) indicate they relate to roughly 0.1% of the membership.

You are saying that this, one of several by Dan Sabbagh documenting the article, shouldn't be used because it sources a statement you think ridiculous. You know better than me, that if the source and author are RS, one has no grounds for suppressing a datum in it bearing on the topic on personal grounds (finding it ridiculous. A large part of what I add to articles like this strikes me privately as utter crap, but my obligation as an editor is to include it. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the value of the statistics per se, we would limit the section size by placing material relating to the Labour Party on Antisemitism in the Labour Party, restricting this section to material related closely to Corbyn. Jontel (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope that is not my objection, I very clearly explained why the issue is the use of wikipedia's voice. Instead, if Sabbagh has the opinion that surveys of complaints indicate what "percent" of Labour membership it applies to you effing attribute it to the source, not say it Wikipedia's voice. This is NPOV 101 Introduction to Neutral editing. Until this and similar issues are fixed, regardless of length or other, in my opinion, irrelevant to my point, issues, I will be strongly opposing this measure.--Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Concise, to the point and more proportionate. G-13114 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The section obviously needs to be cut down, but the proposed distillation leans HEAVILY on blog sources and a letter to the editor for the guardian. The Elmer architect blog is cited 3 times and criticism of the anti-antisemitism accusations is substantiated by a letter to the editor and a mediaereform blog. Distilling a large section of antisemitic incidents backed by reliable sources into one that is less thorough and includes worse sourcing is not a good change. Additionally, the use of WP voice to repeat the "anti-semitism complaints relates to about .1% of the membership" bit is absurd, this is not something the source says or backs up but rather is a quoted claim made by a labor spokesman with no indication of its veracity. SWL36 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Should section headers describe why an event was controversial?

Bodney reverted my edit, which changed for example the header "Querying removal of allegedly antisemitic mural" to "Querying removal of Freedom for Humanity mural". Given that the issue with the mural was that it was allegedly antisemitic, and that its title is not notable or relevant to that, should we change the header? Similarly, Paul Eisen and Raed Salah are not very well known, but the fact that they are a holocaust denier and allegedly repeated the blood libel are what caused the controversy here so should be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That they are in the section on antisemitism sufficiently implies that they are included as seeking to link Corbyn to antisemitism in some way. Wikipedia should be in a NPOV and this is particularly the case for page and section titles. It is appropriate therefore to use neutral headings and put the allegations in the text. Moreover, these allegations are contested in that Corbyn denies knowledge of Eisen's writings and Salah denies the single occasion when he is alleged to have made this historical reference. This is another reason not to highlight them without the context of the text. Jontel (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I broadly agree. That the events are in a section entitled 'Allegations of antisemitism' means that the link between support for the mural (regardless of the name) and antisemitism is already quite obvious. However, I think 'Attending Deir Yassin Remembered commemorations organised by Paul Eisen' could definitely be improved. The attendance of the event is not the controversial aspect, it's the association with an avowed Holocaust denier. I'd support a compromise solution – a section subheading of 'Association with anti-Semites' (I think 'support for' would be too strong), under which the Paul Eisen and Raed Salah subsections could be placed. This gives more context to those specific controversies in a way that the subheadings currently do not. On a separate note, I'm not sure whether 'alleged' is necessary as Paul Eisen is an avowed Holocaust denier and Raed Salah has been convicted of racist incitement for his blood libel comments. Domeditrix (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is too much demonisation in this area. Eisen and Salah are motivated primarily in their campaigning activities by their opposition to Israeli colonialisation of Arab lands and Israeli and Zionist terror. Calling them anti-Semites, as if their entire worldview and life history can be so summed up, oversimplifies and misrepresents them. It is describing them from the viewpoint of Zionists, whereas Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. Jontel (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue with putting 'Attending Deir Yassin Remembered commemorations organised by Paul Eisen' under a subheading 'Association with anti-Semites' would be that the subsection would imply that Corbyn's first consideration is that he choose to associate with an anti-semite and not that Corbyn was there to commemorate the loss of life of innocent Palestinians. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I did't see it that way, I saw it as a loose connection – but I see where you're coming from and agree that it's important not to unintentionally mislead people viewing the page. Would you support the general idea if a different word to 'association' could be conjured up? Domeditrix (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly :) I am open minded to anything that might neutrally improve the article, but do we want more headings, when maybe the article really needs a encyclopedic style clean up and improvement along the lines that both Jontel suggested above and Nishdani here and here. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• clearly the accusations are relevant - that the event was for Deir Yassin is irrelevant - what is relevant (and garnered coverage) - is sharing a platform with Holocaust denier Paul Eisen. The title of a mural by a fringe artist is also completely not notable - it isn't how this was covered in RSes - the issue was supporting an antisemitic mural. Likewise with Raed Salah. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Why the bold type face? - our task is not to blindly repeat the various political biases of the RSes, but to present the facts in a clear and neutral way. Let the reader decide, after all the whole section is entitled 'Allegations of antisemitism' which might already give the poor reader a huge clue. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Certainly - let the reader decide whether sharing a platform with a Holocaust denier is cool or not. This is the issue covered by RSes - Jeremy Corbyn's 10-year association with group which denies the Holocaust, Telegraph, 2017. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, as Bodney alluded to, as there are two live RfCs proposing to eliminate headings within the AS section, it would avoid potentially wasted effort all round if absolutelypuremilk stopped controversially amending them until these proposals are determined. Or have I got this worong? Jontel (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Bolding a statement before an opinion won't make comments anymore valid than others I don't think labelling subjects are appropriate in the Wiki voice whether RS makes these claims or not we should treat claims here carefully and allow the reader decide, however, headings should certainly be NPOV. RevertBob (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Section headings shouldn't be bolded, and should consist simply of the incident's name. Bolding means to adopt tabloid screaming, and words added to the incident title needlessly summarize what the following content will describe. Summarizing the content in the title is a matter of employing the hammering effect. We have a generic heading re 'anti-Semitic accusations', and using every device, subheaders etc., to create an incantatory effect is well, well poisoning POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Although the title "Querying removal of allegedly antisemitic mural" is factually correct, Bodney had a good reason for his change, as it implies that Corbyn knew that the reason for its removal was that it had been seen as antisemitic. As Corbyn's Facebook comment asks the reason for the removal, it is clear that he didn't. Why not just change the title to something like "Querying removal of mural"? Diverging a bit, as to the assertion that the mural was antisemitic, there are divided opinions on that, those supporting the view that it depicts antisemitic stereotypes, those not supporting the view giving credence to the artist's claim that those represented were real people, most of whom weren't Jewish. There's no evidence that Corbyn knew of Eisen's views and presumably he was sharing a platform with other people as well. As the event was held by the group Deir Yassin Remembered, I doubt that marking the massacre at Deir Yassin was irrelevant to Corbyn's attendance. Views on whether Raed Salah is antisemitic vary; to portray him that way as a matter of fact would be non-neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support Bodney's version and adhering to as-neutral-as-possible section headings in general. MOS:HEADINGS says that headings are bound by the same requirements as article titles, WP:TITLE; and those require that we adhere to neutral wording when using descriptive headings. Something like "Jeremy Corbyn and the Allegedly Antisemitic Mural" (worst Harry Potter spinoff ever) is plainly an attempt at a descriptive header, and is clearly both less neutral and further from WP:COMMONNAME than "Querying removal of Freedom for Humanity mural", although I would recommend a simpler "Freedom for Humanity mural" if we must keep the bloated sectionized version we have now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC - revised antisemitism section

The article was revised after discussion here.

Cunard (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I would like to put the revised section below to a vote. I understand that, if agreed and implemented, there will be further discussion on the lead and the inclusion of Saleh and Chakrabarti's peerage. Jontel (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Leading British Jewish organisations and publications have challenged Corbyn on antisemitism, referencing various associations and comments and his handling of allegations within the party, while defenders have cited his support for Jews against racism.

The associations included hosting a meeting where Hajo Meyer compared Israeli actions in Gaza to elements of the Holocaust, attending "two or three" of the annual Deir Yassin Remembered commemorations organised in London by Paul Eisen, whose Holocaust denial views were known, and being a member of three mainly pro-Palestinian online groups containing antisemitic posts. Corbyn has responded that he was unaware of the views expressed by Eisen and some members of the on line groups, and had associated with Mayer and others with whom he disagreed in pursuit of progress in the Middle East. Corbyn was also criticised for opposing the deportation from the UK of Islamic Movement leader Raed Salah, who had allegedly in a speech recounted the historical myth that Jews in Europe had used children's blood in the preparation of holy bread. Corbyn said that Salah was “a voice of the Palestinian people that needs to be heard”.

In 2018, Corbyn was criticised by Jewish leaders for not recognising antisemitism, after Mear One publicised on social media in 2012 that his mural about exploitative bankers was being censored and Corbyn asked him why it was being removed. In response to the criticism, Corbyn said he regretted that he "did not look more closely at the image", agreed it was antisemitic and endorsed the decision to remove it. Corbyn came under further scrutiny over a speech made in 2013, during which he stated that Zionists at a meeting who had "berated" the Palestinian speaker, "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives ...don't understand English irony" (used by the speaker). The remarks were criticised for appearing to perpetuate the antisemitic canard that Jews fail or refuse to integrate into wider society. Corbyn responded that he was using Zionist “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”.

Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing racism and antisemitism. He organised a demonstration against a 1970s National Front march through Wood Green, spoke on the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street, noting that his mother was a protestor, and signed numerous Early Day Motions condemning antisemitism. He visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto, calling it a reminder of the dangers of far-right politics, antisemitism and racism. His defenders have also criticised the tactics of opponents and the role of the media.

Following coverage of alleged antisemitic statements by party members, Corbyn commissioned the Chakrabarti Inquiry and supported changes to the party's disciplinary rules and procedures. In July 2018, after Corbyn initially sought to exclude or amend for party disciplinary purposes those examples from the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism relating to Israel, Britain's three main Jewish newspapers jointly called a Corbyn-led government an "existential threat to Jewish life" in Britain. A September 2018 poll found that 86% of British Jews and 39% of the British public believed Corbyn to be antisemitic.

References

Poll

• Oppose. First off on procedural grounds as we still have an open RfC. The proposed version uses WP:FRINGE sources such as an op-ed the Morning Star to tie in Anti-Fascist Action which most sources ignore or see as irrelevant to antisemitism. While the middle paragraph has a rambling Corbyn response to various allegations - the allegations themselves are not clearly laid out prior to this - e.g. the antisemitic Mural is included only in a response. In general - much too weight is given to Corbyn's response (which generally receives a much smaller weight in RSes) to antisemitism allegations. The joint editoral branding Corbyn as an existential threat to UK Jews is omitted - while in terms of coverage this has had an enduring coverage in top-line international (as well as the UK) outlets (contrast with AFA in the Morning Star op-ed). Antisemitism, per coverage in multiple RSes, has been a defining issue of Corbyn's term as party leader - we should clearly lay out all of the charges and incidents (several of which are omitted), and following that - include a brief Corbyn response. Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece in Forward by a different Rosenberg: Forward - Simon Rosenberg - I’m A British Jew. Jeremy Corbyn Is Not A Threat To Us, 01 August 2018: "But does he represent an existential threat to me and other Jews? Certainly not. Is he anti-Semitic? No. ... What he does represent, however, is a possible future prime minister of Great Britain who has a serious stance against Israel, including BDS, and this is what British Jews are threatened by. They are the ones not separating Israel and its actions from Judaism."     ←   ZScarpia   21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support The question is, is this an article on Jeremy Corbyn or on the sustained campaign to besmirch his character? If the latter, sure, let's list each allegation of some past meeting with someone who allegedly had done something that is asserted to be disreputable. This should require the full details of each allegation to be set out in full, followed by a rebuttal setting out the interpretation and supporting evidence asserted by the defence. This makes for a very long section which should arguably have its own article, rather than be covered here. If the former, that the article is about the totality of Corbyn's life, and we accept that meeting a few people who may or may not have said something at one time that some people object to, is not antisemitism but antizionism, then the allegations should be mentioned in summary, together with the relevant defence, as I have done. Jontel (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Icewhiz, and additionally that the article includes "annual London" in reference to DYR while not mentioning that Eisen's denial was widely known at the time. In reference to your point about structure, would you support an article such as Alleged antisemitic associations of Jeremy Corbyn? I think there is enough content there for such an article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. Indeed, were we to cut down (in some other form, no doubt, given the inadequacies of the proposal above) the antisemitism content here from around 11k to 2.5k of prose - then a WP:SPINOFF would be warranted. Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  In practice, I do not think that such a page is advisable due to a combination of the high level of partisanship, the high availability of distorted and tendentious material and the low level of gravity of the allegations, in that no criminal proceedings are contemplated against Corbyn. Covering any concerns of the Jewish community in Britain about a Corbyn government is more usefully done by exploring what they think might happen as a result of it rather than simply seeking to link Corbyn to anyone Israel does not like. I would also say that Wikipedia is supposed to be an enclyopedia, using RS sources in support, not a survey or record of hostile media coverage per se. Jontel (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Strawman as being antisemitic is not, in and of itself, a crime - so no criminal proceedings are to expected regardless of the merits. As for "high availability of distorted and tendentious material" - you mean WP:SIGCOV in mainstream WP:RSes? Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my support for the previous rewrite; this one is likewise a broad improvement. There's definitely room for tweaks, improvements to sources, and so on, but the most important thing going forwards is to restructure it into an actually readable, encyclopedic summary rather than the blow-by-blow timeline and somewhat convoluted back-and-forth between editors that the current version metastasized into. This version hits the broad points in a way that gives a casual reader a clear understanding of what's going on, without going too deeply into the weeds on individual events or people attacking / defending him. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Again I broadly support, like Aquillion and Jontel this clean up and improvement of this encyclopedia article, as I did above. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is a much needed improvement to the page as the current coverage here is definitely UNDUE and definitely suffers from the bias of RECENTISM. RevertBob (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and reform I am supportive of most of the section, with exception to the sentence beginning "Regarding other allegations [...]", which I think needs to be expanded (in line with comment made by Icewhiz). I think that until this point the proposal does a good job of summarising multiple points. However, the incidents covered by the highlighted sentence go beyond association with antisemites and veers into actions / statements by Corbyn. The reasoning as to why people and organisations perceived these things as antisemitic is not made clear (as it was with the part on association), and Corbyn's opposition to the removal of the antisemitic mural is not even mentioned – as currently worded the section merely states he "had not initially recognised" the mural as being antisemitic. I'm not saying expand these sections to their current lengths, I think they're verbose – but casual readers will not gain an understanding of the matter if no justification for an incident's inclusion in the section is included in the section! I can't support the section as it is currently worded because of that issue. Domeditrix (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support I think most of us acknowledge that there is UNDUE and NPOV problems in the current version. This change would definitely be helpful. My support is to the change from the current version to this and I hope that consensus would not be used as a justification to not allow anyone to slightly change some words or even add more content.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Concise and goes towards addressing the UNDUE issues. G-13114 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

We should be seeking consensus so I have tried to incorporate in the version above the specific points mentioned in terms of what people want to see in it. However, I have also tried to present both points of view, as per NPOV, and focus on the events rather than the coverage per se. By all means say if there is anything that needs adding or is seriously incorrect. I hope some voting Oppose miught change their vote. Jontel (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's better, but how about this for a re-wording for the paragraph beginning "Regarding his comments [...]"

Corbyn faced criticism from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews after it emerged that, in 2012, he had questioned Tower Hamlets Borough Council's decision to remove Mear One's Freedom for Humanity mural – a piece perceived to propagate antisemitic canards. Corbyn expressed his regret that he "did not look more closely at the image" before commenting on the piece. Corbyn came under further scrutiny over a speech made in 2013, during which he stated that Zionists at a meeting "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives[...] don't understand English irony". The remarks were criticised for appearing to perpetuate the antisemitic canard that Jews fail or refuse to integrate into wider society. Corbyn responded that he was using Zionist “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”.

That paragraph is just one line longer than appears in the revised section, but I believe it is significantly clearer in stating in each case (concisely) what comments were made, the reasons the comments were perceived as potentially antisemitic, and Corbyn's response. I think ensuring that each of those boxes is ticked, while not giving too much weight to any individual aspect, is the best way to guarantee a neutral point of view is maintained. Domeditrix (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to incorporate that while ensuring there is sufficient context for the comments to be understood and keeping it short. Jontel (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The poll has been open for twelve days. There are five votes in support and three opposed. I have made amendments to the draft in response to specific objections. Are there any strong reasons for us not to now go ahead with the proposed change? Thanks, Jontel (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We haven't had much discussion of the new draft, so maybe more opinions should be sought on that version before pushing ahead. I also think the third paragraph has some rather odd phrasing ("after Corbyn asked him why"). I wonder if a better source can be found for citation 26, which doesn't seem to support what it's purported to support (the word 'record' doesn't appear in the article, for example). It may also be worth mentioning that support has been led by Jewish Voice for Labour. I think the final paragraph could be extended by a sentence or two to explain the dispute a little, and why the difference in definitions existed. Domeditrix (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've tweaked it slightly to repond to your points. Thanks for those. I did invite comment on he revised draft six days ago and no-one else has commented. Jontel (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with the change, as it reflects the general wish for a shorter (not WP:UNDUE) and more coherent version. I have tried to include suggestions for incorporation. We have been discussing this for a month which should be long enough. I think the change should also resolve the discussion over the lead and section subheadings. It is deliberately concise, so there is scope for anything that is really unclear to be expanded a bit. Jontel (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Having had another look, I am concerned by the phrasing of the mural sentence, as RSs report that he defended the mural - saying that he "asked him why it was being removed" is technically true but misleading without the rest of the sentence in which he appears to oppose the removal. I think "questioned the removal" is a more accurate term if people don't think "defended" is applicable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it in line with that. Jontel (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV

I don't think that describing organisations with the word "leading" (whether sourced or not) is NPOV. RevertBob (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better way to describe them? We shouldn't avoid the fact that the biggest Jewish groups have criticised Corbyn, while he is backed by much smaller groups. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, simply as "British Jewish organisations and publications" and dropping the weasel word. RevertBob (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think its important (and sources make it important, giving much less weight to groups like JVL than the mainstream organisations) to keep a distinction between smaller groups like JVL, founded a few years ago specifically to support Corbyn against allegations of antisemitism, and groups like the Jewish Chronicle, one the oldest Jewish newspapers in the world. SWL36 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's not NPOV, it's sourced, and important and weighty, the organizations are far more important than JVL and similar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Critics of the organizations and publications concerned would also describe them as right wing and pro Israeli and these descriptions might be equally relevant. The criticism has also been enthusiastically adopted by national conservative newspapers and right wing Labour MPs and this could be mentioned. Or, as the focus here should be on Corbyn, rather than attempting to define his critics, how about omitting them in this introduction and say "Corbyn has been challenged on antisemitism..." They are mentioned further on in the section. Jontel (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We generally follow the POV of mainline publications - e.g. the NYT - as opposed to the Morning Star or very fringey and small pro-Corbyn front groups such as the JVL. These organizations are generally referred to as the leading Jewish organizations in the UK, representing the vast majority of UK's Jews - as they are described in this manner in sources, so should we. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The superlative is merely a subjective opinion of journalist(s). It's irrelevent whether they come from: such opinions are not neutral or fact and shouldn't be presented in the Wikipedia voice. RevertBob (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see that leading is ambigious. If we mean prominent or significant, perhaps we can use one of those words instead. That is how I have interpreted it. If some people are understanding it as meaning that they represent or lead "the vast majority" of Britain's Jews, that is another matter. That is their goal, but Charedi, secular and left wing Jews, who form a significant proportion in the UK, are arguably not particularly well represented in the way that these organizations are constituted and managed. Certainly, we should not simply follow the lead of foreign and/ or pro-Israeli publications like the NYT. Jontel (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream left-wing Jews are well represented by the main Jewish organizations as well as by the long established Jewish Labour Movement.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Leading, prominent or significant are all POV opinions and not neutral facts. Indeed, we shouldn't be following POV descriptions by journalists. RevertBob (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As there are a number of leftwing Jewish organisations in the UK that do not believe in putting Israel at the centre of Jewish life, as the JLM does, and/ or endorses the current Labour leadership, as most other Labour members do, I would prefer "Some British Jewish organisations and publications..." to indicate that not all of them challenge Corbyn, as shown in the sources. Jontel (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the suggested appropriate wording is obviously more neutral. RevertBob (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No, as it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to present the 90%+ view (as shown by polls, organization size) as "some".Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, and this isn't Wikipedia's voice, this is RS'. It would be preposterous and maybe FRINGE to do it your way. It's as if comparing the New York Times to one of those free newspapers given out on the trains in the morning. The balance is indeed false, but it is hugely false. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Using polls to argue against the use of a word (note: some means an unspecified amount or number) is synthesis. We don't present an opinion as fact and the word leading is the POV voice of an RS being presented in the Wikipedia voice here.

I agree with Jontel's wording but rather than trying to find balance by finding a replacement we can agree on how about we try WP:NPOV by removing the word "leading" altogether instead? RevertBob (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Still false balance - and leading is sourced to mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it's not me or Icewhiz saying "leading", it's RS saying it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not balance, there's nothing in WP:FALSEBALANCE that this relates to at all, it's WP:NPOV. RS is used to support facts not opinions unless they're attributed. It's being used here to supporting inclusion of the word "leading" which is an opinion in the Wikipedia voice. RS (Wikipedia uses reliable not mainstream sources by the way) or not it's still an opinion of a NYT journalist who has described these organisations as leading. RevertBob (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by WP:V and WP:RS. We should not censor the RS just because it makes the Labour Party look bad. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The only way to go by RS here is to say "organisations described as leading by a New York Times journalist" which is obviously undue. We should not POV push either. RevertBob (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we do that with every other article on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes because opinions need to be attributed. RevertBob (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Leads should be stringent. 'Leading' is pointy and ambiguous. (a) ranking first (b) exercising leadership (c) providing guidance (d) 'given most prominent display'. The simple solution is 'major'.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Here I thought we go by WP:V and WP:RS. RS and V state that "leading Jewish publications....." It's not our voice, it's the RS' voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, editors are supposed to learn to paraphrase, and if we quote source language directly, the practice is to put it in inverted commas. Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The only way to go by RS here is to say "organisations described as 'leading' by a New York Times journalist" which is obviously undue. Nishidani's alternative sensible suggestion sounds uncontentious. RevertBob (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If the NYT is no longer considered a RS, then we should go to the noticeboards to discuss it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation: Whatevery terminology the NYTs uses must be transcribed on Wikipedia. You sidestepped the point and there is no assertion that the NYTs is not RS. It's called a strawman argument. Focus.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reporting by the NYT is generally considered a RS on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's contructive to engage in filbustering about whether NYT is RS. We all know it's RS but the discussion here is about POV/NPOV wording. RevertBob (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating this but as the discusion has become extended, there is a way around this. This article is about Corbyn, rather than his critics per se. The focus should be on him. Moreover, as often happens, the problem comes with drafting a summary. It is challenging to define BDoBJ, the JLC and the JC in one word. Views on them do differ. Moreover, there are other Jewish organisations e.g. CST, JLM, Holocaust Educational Trust which have been critical of him but may or may not be leading. Certainly the reference omits the non Jewish media and politicians that have played a major role in criticising him on the issue. Surely, for the introduction, we can simply say "Corbyn has been challenged on antisemitism, referencing various past associations and comments and his handling of allegations within the party, while defenders have cited his support for Jews against racism." There are references to Jewish leaders and Jewish newspapers further on in the section in relation to specific instances. Jontel (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason the wording cannot reference the percentage of Jews represented by the organisation, e.g. "<organisation>, representing <percentage> of British Jews"? I do think "described by the NYT as leading" is unnecessary, as it can simply be sourced to a footnote. Vashti (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, because that's not what RS say. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again because that's what RS say.

There will be a lot of politics around this afternoon, including two major Jewish organisations holding a protest in Parliament Square this afternoon about antisemitism in the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged failure to deal with it properly.Andrew Sparrow, 'Speaker grants emergency Commons debate on allegations about Vote Leave breaking election spending rules – as it happened,' The Guardian 26 March 2018. Idem here Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And? What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about the three newspaper editorials. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Kindly read for once, the top of this thread.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So far the suggested options we've got is removing the word altogether or replacing it with "some" or "major", or chaging the wording to "Corbyn has been challenged on antisemitism, referencing various past associations and comments and his handling of allegations within the party, while defenders have cited his support for Jews against racism."

Are we able to build some consensus around neutral wording or should we start an RfC? RevertBob (talk)

What about "The mainstream" organisations? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is about following sources not deciding for ourselves is neutral. Looking at the sources "leading", "major", "mainstream" or "prominent" would work for me.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinions stated as fact

Can an POV opinions and not neutral facts in the Wikipedia voice without attribution or transcription Special:Diff/895402186 because it's sourced from RS or should editors paraphrase, and if source language quoted directly, the practice is to put it in inverted commas? RevertBob (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Firstly RfCs are normally used when extended discussion has not reached a consensus, not after being reverted. Given that the antisemitic nature of Hobson's accusation is not disputed by any RSs (that anyone has presented so far), or Corbyn himself, I don't think it is necessary to attribute the term. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we can close this RFC, the RFC opener has been blocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - this is a malformed RfC with a non-neutral and incoherent question, without prior discussion. RfC poser seems to question use of adjectives is wide (even uniform) use by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one...

[3] I do think the antisemitism section needs expanding. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly it's valid in the next few days if Corbyn doesn't disassociate himself from the group, but I think it's a bit premature in the hours since the first report. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PSC condemns AS so it's a matter of some local activists posting cartoons having a go at Israeli policies, not the organisation. Not sure one can expect Corbyn to resign as patron of Britain's leading solidarity campaign just because of that. Jontel (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Israeli policies is not the same thing as antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of jail/gaol

In Other Events, "gaol" should be changed to "jail" to match the most commonly used spelling of the word. 2620:0:1000:2510:34B5:8665:BCE4:B48 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 06:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters

The subject's post-nominal letters should be moved to immediately follow his name, in line with MOS:POSTNOM. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 06:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict enforcement

This page has been made subject to active arbitration remedies by RevertBob. Was this discussed somewhere? I can see how a link might be made given Corbyn has strong views on the conflict and has campaigned on the issue, but is this a strong enough link to add the restrictions given that the "Israel and Palestine" section is not particularly controversial and hasn't had any edit wars (at least that I have noticed). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Several British Jewish organisations and publications"

I don't doubt the good faith of whoever penned this text, but it seems to have the problem of implying (a) that these accusations primarily or entirely originate in and are promoted by members of the British Jewish community and (b) that a significant portion of the British Jewish community believe these accusations.

For all I know either one or both of (a) and (b) might be completely true, but reading through the section (the text in question is not directly cited to any reliable source) I don't get that impression, and actually most of the Jewish groups and publications specifically cited inline seem to be arguing against the accusations.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

See this ongoing RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

British organisations and publications

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be a clear preference among RFC participant to use option F.Tvx1 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

---

How should the text summarise Corbyn's critics Special:Diff/893825812? Note: editors feel free to add further appropriate wording. RevertBob (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• A: leading British Jewish organisations
• B: major British Jewish organisations
• C: mainstream British Jewish organisations
• D: prominent British Jewish organisations
• E: organisations described as 'leading' by a New York Times journalist
• F: Corbyn has been challenged on antisemitism, (i.e. organisations not mentioned)

RevertBob (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

I'm happy with any of A-D. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• In declining order of preference, FDBCAE. Jontel (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• A, C ,B, D, E, F - in that order. RfC poser seems to think that New York Times reporting (as well as reporting by a multitude of other RSes) is opinion. We generally follow adjectives used by mainstream sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  F, A, C ,B, D, E - I've been convinced by the discussion below that we shouldn't cast Corbyn's detractors as Jewish - as criticism of Corbyn on this issue has extended far and beyond the Jewish community alone. I do think it bears mentioning that the leading/mainstream UK Jewish organizations have taken Corbyn to task as well - however not in this particular sentence (where we merely state "defenders" of an unknown nature). Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• D its the most neutral -----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would go with C - there is a clear and documented divide between the mainstream Jewish community and the far smaller pro-Corbyn minority. Vashti (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• C or D. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• A or C Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• C 'Mainstream' seems to accurately reflect that these are both the main current of Jewish orgs and news outlets, and numerically they represent the greater number of Jews than those holding other opinions (for various reasons, including holding left-wing or Israel-critical positions). A and D are acceptable, but both imply they are somehow more important than those who are not critical of Corbyn. E is weasel-ish and F too vague. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• C. If not then D.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• F - As per Jontel, the focus here should be on Corbyn, rather than attempting to define his critics. Defining the BDoBJ, the JLC and the JC in one word is difficult as there are other Jewish organisations such as CST, JLM, HET which have been critical of him but may or may not be leading or major, mainstream or prominent. Also, the source and A, B, C and D omits the non-Jewish media and politicians that have played a major role in criticising him on the issue. Therefore, to summarise all his critics it's best to omit them in this introduction as they are not limited to "British Jewish organisations and publications". In the following order of preference: F, D, B, C, A, E.

Also as per Nishidani, "leading" is pointy, ambiguous, non-neutral and opinion presented in the Wikipedia voice as fact without attribution or transcription rather than paraphrased, and if source language is quoted directly the practise is put it in inverted commas. RevertBob (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• F, if not then B or C: F is certainly the most neutral, C as per the reasons Pincrete presents above, B for similar reasons. I also agree that options A & D might be misread to imply that Wikipedia considers that the described organisations are somehow of more importance than those who are not critical of Corbyn. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• F. Criticism of Corbyn regarding (alleged) antisemitism has come from multiple people and organisations, not all of whom are Jewish and of those that are not all are "leading", "mainstream", "prominent", "British", or any other adjective you care to mention, and not all people and organisations to whom those adjectives do apply are critical of Corbyn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• F Per others. Multiple people, not all of them Jewish, have noted his antisemitism.Casprings (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• F (Summoned by bot) As noted above, the others are too narrow in characterizing the criticizers. E is a nonstarter. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• F,A,D,B,C (via FRS) - E is the worst. A-D focus on the Jewishness of the organizations unnecessarily. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above per WP:PEACOCK. Just say "several organisations". If I have to select one I would say first choice C, second choice D; but what does it say about our encyclopedia that we have to classify groups whose opinions we cite as "mainstream"? If it really looks like their opinions are not mainstream, it's probably because they are not mainstream, and were merely referred to as such by a journalist with an opinion -- The New York Times is not infallible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

What about "Critics, including mainstream/leading Jewish organisations and publications..."? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's good to consider alternative texts and to try to find a compromise. However, there is redundancy here. Those referencing antisemitism are by definition critics, while one would surely assume that Jewish organisations are included: they are a necessary component of such assertions. Moreover, they are mentioned in the section. So, I do not see what this would add. If we were to be thorough, we could say: A combination of right wing Labour MPs, Conservative supporting media and pro Israel Jewish organisations have challenged... However, I am content to compromise on F. Jontel (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.