Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

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)

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.

• Corbyn has a section on his attitude to an antisemitic image with a direct to a full article, a view he, on reflection, repudiated as superficial. Trump defended an anti-Semitic image - not a word of this is mentioned;
• Deborah Lipstadt's 2018 book is cited as describing Corbyn's words and actions as facilitating "institutionalization of anti-Semitism among other progressives", and asserted, "Like Trump, Corbyn has emboldened and enabled anti-Semites.'

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)

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

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

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

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