Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

RfC about a letter from Orthodox Rabbis

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.

---

Should the letter from the Orthodox Rabbis be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section? Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

See this diff for the content in question - and to be accurate these are ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) Rabbis. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No - As WP:UNDUE with a side of WP:V/WP:BLP issues. The sole reporting on this is in the context of this being possibly fake or not. The Jerusalem Post ran a single item back in 12 September on this being a fake - [1], and did not run a followup. The Jewish Chronicle ran an item on this being possibly fake on 12 Sep - [2] - and appears to have walked this back (but not with a retraction - saying the Jewish Community Council of North London (JCC, not JC) now accepts this, but still saying others dispute) somewhat - on 17 September - [3]. JPost did not post a retraction. JC did not quite say this was genuine (they did however verify 3 signatories). So we have 2 RSes (and JPost is probably the more established of the two) - one whose last reporting is that of this being a fake - so the V issue as well as the BLP issues (towards, if not Corbyn, the alleged signatories) is clear. Perhaps even more clear than the BLP/V issue - there has been no coverage of this outside of the minor forgery coverage (JPost wrote on this being a twitter fake, JC wrote on this being a possible fake and then maybe not a fake) - it seems the letter itself has little significance as it is simply uncovered outside of the possible forgery angle. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes It's become very clear the letter is not a fake, and it's certainly notable. It has had coverage in reliable sources, and even if that coverage was spurred by the misguided belief the letter was fake, it doesn't change the fact that this document is notable. As I mentioned in talk, I believe that the furor surround the letter in the press is significant enough that we should be able to refer to it (in neutral language and without commentary) under WP:PRIMARY even if the other sources are seen as inappropriate for various reasons. Furthermore the arguments of WP:DUE are very weak here. This is a notable group of influential rabbis, not just some random guys off the street. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Support mention of the letter based on arguments provided by Simonm223 (talk · contribs). Burrobert (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• No major issues with WP:V, potentially WP:BLP (as the organization involved claimed to be involved has itself denied it), WP:POINT, WP:DUE as pretty much the entire coverage is about its authenticity or lack thereof. ["The UOHC itself said the letter had not gone out in its name."] -- inclusion could imply contradicting what the org actually said in public and accusing them of lying. Inclusion is unjustified WP:POINT.--Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• No as per Calthinus and Icewhiz. There are major concerns with that letter. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes since even the Jewish Chronicle now clearly accepts it is genuine or else they wouldn't post this paragraph on the September 20, 2018 without any caveats: "It follows a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn, signed by 34 leading Charedi rabbis, was circulated in the strictly Orthodox communities of North London, centred on Stamford Hill, which condemned bodies such as the Board for being so stridently critical of Labour's antisemitism crisis under Mr Corbyn."(Andromedean (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC))
• No as per Icewhiz and Calthinus. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Clearly verified and notable as per Andromedean, Burrobert and Simonm223 above and in the detailed discussions in Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid. further above. As RevertBob points out it only needs a sentence, we don't need to make a mountain out of a mole hill out of this. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Per BOD bit no major song and dance - one sentence. In another context I would say no but any source, no matter how minor, is used to support claims of anti-seminitism so we need some balance.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - As User:Simonm223 and User:Andromedean, it's been clarified that the letter isn't fraudulent and the Jewish Chronicle clearly accepts it's genuine. It has received coverage in reliable sources which makes the letter of note and justifies inclusion. The arguments of WP:DUE are indeed very weak as it's a notable group of rabbis whose views are of importance and worthy to provide balance to the page. RevertBob (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• What makes them notable? I've never heard of 99.99% of them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - As per Simonm223, Andromedean and RevertBob. The letter has been authenticated by the very group and paper that questioned it. Two quibbles, the rabbis should NOT be described as 'leading', which is peacocky, and per the sources they should be referred to as 'Charedi'. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - Per Simonm223, and RevertBob. Notable group of Rabbis, confirmed as genuine, coverage in mainstream sources. Ticks every box. G-13114 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

What is notable about this "group" of rabbis? Do any of them have WP articles, for example? Do any of their congregations? Have these rabbis been mentioned in other news articles? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• No - There is in fact nothing notable about this group of Rabbis, it fails WP:UNDUE and the only coverage in any mainstream sources was regarding whether it's even real. This fails WP:NOTABLE as well. If it isn't covered in multiple mainstream WP:SOURCES, it shouldn't be here.Winchester2313 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Based on the level of coverage, it's due at least as much weight as many of the other flash-in-the-pan events currently granted vastly more weight in that section. It's silly to suggest that a sentence or two for this is undue. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Which of the other events are "flash in the pan" compared to this letter? An MP resigning? All the Jewish newspapers in the UK sharing an editorial? The body formally representing most British Jews speaking out? Those are clearly not "flash in the pan". That this should have the same weight as them is pretty hard to justify. If, however, you mean the other open letters or the op ed in the LRB, you might be right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• No - WP:UNDUE and not notable. The text of the letter (translated into English on the blog 'If You Tickle Us') indicates what of one of the non-signatories surmises, which is that the letter was principally oriented to the mainstream Jewish community, from which it dissociates. As such ir does not add substance to the political debate. TrabiMechanic (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• No Per WP:UNDUE.This letter is not notable enough to include. Shrike (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - Although it now clear the letter is not a forgery, it is of marginal, ephemeral interest and got little coverage in RSs. Most coverage focused on whether it was a fake or not. It just seems UNDUE to include it. If it is included, mentioned would need to be brief. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could those above still claiming the letter is fake please provide a more recent source than this, verifying the letter was signed by 34 leading Charedi rabbis. I don't believe publications always offer official endorsements or refutations of articles, just statements.

Shraga Stern a prominent Charedi (Orthodox) Jewish activist in London explains through the Jewish Voice for Labour site that this Orthodox community of almost 50,000 in the UK; is not far short of the number which the BoD represents, whose views dominate the MSM. The article is therefore very important so views of other Jewish communities are covered. (Andromedean (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC))

This story has moved on somewhat since this discussion was started, the number of rabbi's supporting the letter has increased and further remarks have been made. My suggested text is as follows:

In September 2018 34 leading Charedi rabbis from the Jewish Orthodox community, signed a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn and distanced themselves from claims in the media that the Jews of Britain are outraged towards him. Activists Shraga Stern and Naftoli Friedman who have taken responsibility for the letter believe the Labour Party’s 'antisemitism crisis' is a “smear with a Zionist agenda”, describing it as “cruel and unjustified” (Andromedean (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC))

Yes the number of signatures has increased since the letter was first released and the same group has also decided to protest at the Board of Deputies meeting this Friday I think. Your suggested addition is fine with me. However I wonder what everyone else thinks about ending the RfC. The count is now 6-4. Do we need more time or is everyone happy to end the RfC at this point and add the wording suggested by @Andromedean:? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• (a) I think we need to keep the RfC open a few more days before closure, and I think an uninvolved editor needs to close it - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed (b) The issue with this letter is no longer forgery but notability - argument for or against based on whether it is a fake or not are not valid. We now have RSs saying it is not a forgery. (c) I'm not sure RSs give us any reason to believe Shraga Stern is "prominent" (three mentions in the Jewish Chronicle, all recent: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22shraga+stern%22&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-gbGB748GB748&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU8L3r8NPdAhUDHxoKHSxmDncQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=938 (d) His account of the maths of Jewish communal representation can't be taken at face value: 50,000 is about right, which is over 20% of the whole Jewish population (see our article[4]) but to say this figure "is not far short of the number which the BoD represents" is completely false, given synagogues electing reps to the BoD account for 86% of synagogue=affiliated households, as well as the BoD additionally representing communally affiliated secular Jews via charities, youth groups, etc which elect representatives. (e) Skwawkbox absolutely is not an RS. It is a blog, so counts as an SPS. (f) the phrase " 34 leading Charedi rabbis from the Jewish Orthodox community" is badly constructed - Charedi (usually rendered Haredi, although the JC spell it with a C) is a branch of Orthodox, so "from the Jewish Orthodox community" is both redundant and misleading. Just "34 leading Haredi rabbis" would be enough, or "34 rabbis from London's ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Membership of synagogues has fallen below 80,000 for the first time in 30 years as "mainstream" Jews marry out of the community, a report has found. Have you any idea how many of these 80,000 are non Orthodox?

The claim that the Jewish Chronicle is more reliable than Sqwawkbox seems to be an assumption or matter of opinion, it's not based on any evidence. We know several Jewish papers got this story badly wrong, and had to retract their original view because of Sqwawkbox checking with the sources and persisting. I think only the Squwawkbox has the full letter in English. the JC has cleverly hidden the first part, so Sqwawkbox source or the Charendi Twitter account will have to be referenced. (Andromedean (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC))

Andromedean, on the stats: the question isn't which are "non-Orthodox" as the Board represents mainstream Orthodox (United Synagogue, which is the biggest denomination, and Federation and Sephardic synagogues - altogether 41,990 households, 53% of all household synagogue memberships) as well as non-Orthodox (Masorti, Liberal, Reform - 33% of households). What it doesn't represent are the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim - 10,712, or 13% of synagogue member households. Synagogue membership is usually measured by households by individuals, as it is households that join (which deflates the Haredi numbers, as they have over double the number of children). The 80,000 is households not individuals. It constitutes 57% of households in the UK with any Jewish-identified members - the other 43% is mainly secular or non-observant Jews, some of whom are represented in the BoD by charities, youth groups, etc. So, in terms of households, Haredim represent 7% of Jewish households. Source for all this: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=3236 In raw numbers, Haredim are much more heavily represented, of course, with best estimates of between 31,000 to 44,000 out of nearly 300,000 - source: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=2514 So, rather lower than the 50,000 I said before. 50,000 seems to be commonly cited in the press, and I think comes from an estimate by Haredi rabbi Abraham Pinter: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5313489 Shraga Stern mixes and matches these figures to create a false impression: there "are 263,000 Jews living in UK according to the 2011 census. Half of them do not belong to a synagogue according to BoD population statistics, so this half would not have voting rights in the BoD elections. Add this up with 50,000 Charedi Jews it equals 181,000 out of 263,000 who will not fall under the BoD and the BoD do not represent them." The BoD website says half the census figure don't belong to a synagogue[5], but they're misquoting the JPR research, which says half of households with a Jew in them - clearly a household of 5 Jews is more likely to go to a synagogue than a household with 1 Jew and 4 non-Jews. Non-practising Jews in mixed households (I'm in that category) would be less likely to be active members of the Jewish community and therefore unconnected to the BoD. They would make up a significant percentage of the Jews who identify as ‘Secular/Cultural (24% of UK Jews according to the JPR).

On Skwawkbox, we can take it to the RSN if you want, but I'm fairly certain it'd be ruled non-reliable. It is not treated as an RS by other RSs. It describes itself and is generally described by others as a "blog", which counts as a self-published source. See https://inews.co.uk/news/pro-corbyn-website-loses-fake-news-grenfell-complaint-against-daily-mail/ for one example of why it's not likely to be considered reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Re Andromedean-- no idea who Charendis are, perhaps you mean Haredim? Perhaps they are "Xarendi" in Greek with its -nd- spellings, maybe? Anyhow, I strongly oppose using this problematic situation (to say hte least) to insert into the article that the "antisemitism crisis is a smear with a Zionist agenda" -- POV issues aside, this is a BLP issue for dissenters within the Labour party. As Falter is quite rightfully quoted on Al Jazeera (an anti-Zionist news org)-- ["For this to really be a smear campaign, it would require that every Jewish major institution in the Jewish community as well as the vast majority of Labour MPs to have conspired to attack the Labour Party, which is a party that the Jewish community played a huge role in building and which most Jews used to vote for."]. We absolutely are not implying Labour members who have put their political careers on the line for something they believe in, rightly or wrongly, are involved in a massive anti-Labour Zionist conspiracy. Full stop. --Calthinus (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

think we are developing consensus around this and will enter the text later, however I'm still concerned about those who might game the system to keep it out whilst the subject is still topical.

For example, regarding the reference for the letter, we have a number of choices, all of which could be used to omit it. a) The Jerusalem post which appears content to print the full letter in English providing their own fake claim accompanies it in their unamended original article b) the Jewish Chronicle letter which omits the embarrassing first half of the letter, but prints it all in Hebrew after admitting it's valid. c) The True Torah Twitter page which has the letter in full, but is original source d) The Swawkbox article, which has been shown to be correct from the start, and has pressured the JC into admitting the validity of the article, but it is still a self publishing 'blog' and will be ridiculed for that reason alone.

Of course the root of the problem is that the MSM are deliberately omitting 'positive' news about Corbyn, making balanced reporting virtually impossible and allowing his distractors to use liberal use of well intentioned rules to keep it out. (Andromedean (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)).

In as much MSM are, for the most part, "deliberately omitting 'positive'" (or lacking coverage of this letter) - it is a rather clear indication it is UNDUE. As for the Jerusalem Post - if they did not amend, correct, or issue a later article - we are still in situation where 1 RS says it is fake, and another one partially verified it - a WP:V issue. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

But they *did amend, correct and issue a later article* therefore doubly verifying WP:V the existence of the letter. Move on from this clearly false accusation of it being a fake. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope - or at least no one has presented such a source showing a JPost amendment. We have followup reporting by JC. JPost did not correct or amend their reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's the Jewish Chronicle, a UK publication which is regulated which has announced a retraction. However, why would the Jerusalem Post, a middle East publication, probably without the relevant contacts in London bother to announce an amendment? How are they regulated, if at all? Why are we taking this publication seriously at all on a subject like this? I'm sorry but I think this is just a delaying tactic, which could last forever.

My suggestion is to enter the latest Jewish chronicle text in accordance with consensus, but keep this comment section open. The onus is very much on those to refute the article.(Andromedean (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC))

Even if we accept the letter as authentic, it is still way to indepth for a section that is already too long here. Some Jews think this, some think that. We know what the majority think, we have polls for that, not 34 individuals who are likely facing fallout from other elements in the community (as pro-Corbyn Jewish politicians have). --Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, issues like this point to a perception of a double-standard; as it seems the criteria for inclusion of accusations are much less strict than the criteria for inclusion of defenses. As I've mentioned many times before, I'd be happy to be more strict with criteria for all inclusions but it must be POV balanced. We can't be saying, for instance, that Lipstadt is fine but Finlayson is not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 This is (I think) the third time the "why Lipstadt but not Finlayson argument" has been made, and aside from a huge difference in credentials as pointed about by Bobfrombrockley, the whole argument is moot because, as was stated before, Lipstadt is not on the page.--Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

JPost is a paper of record - the no.1 English paper in Israel, and with a UK desk. As for Lipstadt - she has been covered and quoted in a SECONDARY fashion for her stmt by top tier outfits - WaPo, NYT, Telegraph, and many many more. There are opeds by others that discuss her views. This is quite different from Finlayson, who besides lacking credentials in the study of antisemitism, merely posted an oped that was not discussed in a secondary fashion. That being said - we can certainly have Finlayson (with an appropriate intro on her background and attributed as a solitary oped, denying antisemitism - contrasted with Lipstadt's analysis.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Her article isn't there over strident objections of certain other parties and I keep banging that drum largely because I want to point out that, other than Calthinus many of the people most opposed to including Finlayson are the same people who argued most passionately for inclusion of Lipstadt. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• The above text has been inserted despite the RfC remaining open. The RfC has been open 6 days, which is on the early side for closing it. As I said before, a blog is not a decent source - we don't need to link to Skwawkbox. And the "34 Charedi rabbis, part of the Jewish Orthodox community" is misleading. If the letter is mentioned (although I really don't see its notability), it needs to be with decent sources only and say something like "34 rabbis from London's Haredi communities". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the text until the RFC is closed. Also, I would point out that besides UNDUE and perhaps POV, the letter is not notable in itself. Is it signed by anyone prominent or just some local rabbis? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion has slowed down recently. Currently there is no sign of consensus. Does anyone from either of the 2 camps want to propose some sort of compromise position? This would presumably involve some mention of the letter in a form that would be acceptable to those who do consider it UNDUE (which seems to be the main reason proposed for not including it)? Alternatively, the RFC can be further advertised to attract interest. Of the suggestions on the RFC information page the one that seems most relevant is to publicise it on the talk pages of closely related articles or policies. Any suggestions in this direction? Burrobert (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now advertised the RfC at a number of pages and projects. Burrobert (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Without opining on this one way or another, I’ll just point out that more than one user appears to be basing their vote on claims of notability, or lack thereof, of the proposed content as part of the article. However there is no policy or guideline that requires this; Notability is a property of an article topic only, not of article content. Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, that the letter need not meet notability standards, though a few of the "No" votes above seem to be demanding that it be "notable". As to the general question I am too far removed from these issues to make all the necessary judgments. Jzsj (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion of an article is based on it being notable but the criteria for inclusion of content in an article is based on it being noteworthy. RevertBob (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

o be more specific, the guide section stating "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" states "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". [Due and undue weight] states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" --Andromedean (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• At what point is this RfC to be closed, who does it, and how do we arrive at a decision? I don't like leaving this section off whilst there's a slight majority for inclusion. I fear nothing will ever be done. --Andromedean (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy on closure is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs A slight majority is not a consensus. I think this is the relevant bit: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required duration, but 30 days is a common default for contentious discussions... The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time... Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." I think we should maybe leave it a few days (we're at 23 now) then if it still looks like consensus won't be reached maybe we should ask the admin noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• It appears that we are not going to reach a clear consensus on this. Instead of waiting for the RfC to expire we probably should be trying to reach some form of compromise if possible. Some of the users on the NO side suggested that if this item is mentioned it should be in a limited form. Would someone from the NO side like to suggest a wording that is acceptable to them? Burrobert (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked again to see what reliable sources mention the letter. I believe the only RSs are still these: [6], [7] [8][9] The first three discuss whether the letter is a forgery or not, which is what the letter seems most noteworthy for, so we'd need to use the third one if our article is to focus on anything other than whether it is genuine. It is hard to argue that something for which there seems to be literally just one single usable source is noteworthy enough to be included, but if it is, it would need to be faithful to that source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me that finds the use of the term 'reliable' here profoundly disturbing. Three Jewish (probably pro-Zionist & anti-Corbyn) publications that spread the false rumour that this letter was fake, are still being defined by editors as reliable sources, whilst the news outlets who did the research, correctly identified it as genuine, and made the Jewish publications retract their views are still being called unsuitable? --Andromedean (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the 'Blog' sources mentioned above, the Morning Star has cited this story in a slightly different context. --Andromedean (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In general, I don't object to the Morning Star as an RS, but I would caution against using it as a source in this case: (a) the language the MS article uses ("rabbis of the Charedi Orthodox group within the Jewish faith"; "Jewish people from his group, the Charedim") suggests the journalist doesn't know what the Haredim are (whatever they are, they are not "a group") and (b) the MS article doesn't actually give us much information about the letter so is limited use as a source here. However, it may show some noteworthyness when combined with the Jewish media.

There is no way Skwawkbox (presumably the blog referred to) can be considered an RS - I am very sure the RSN would back that up, but I guess you could try. I'm not sure why you put blog i scare quotes; Skwawkbox articles carry the text "This blog is provided free of charge", so it's not controversial to call them that. The Skwawkbox posts on this case are all littered with obvious inaccuracies too, such as saying the letter was from the UOHC which it isn't.

The JC is cited in over 1500 articles on Wikipedia, the Jerusalem Post. If you want to eliminate the JC in particular or Jewish newspapers in general from use as an by WP, then once again you'd need to take that to the RSN, but I don't think you'd get much support. If you eliminate the JC, then the only RS would be the Morning Star, which means we're back to having only one source, which shows very low noteworthyness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley: That's a straw man argument. I'm not suggesting removing Jewish sources. However, it's no secret they are anti-Corbyn, so we have to treat their views and even what they decide to print with the upmost scepticism; as is the case with many pro-Zionist journalists whether they are from the MSM or not. Of course in the case of the Morning Star, Evolve Politics, the Canary, EI, Jewish Voice for Labour and the Sqwawkbox, they might have a more pro-Palestinian viewpoint. To get to the truth we really need both sides, not just one taken as the truth, which is what happens at present. --Andromedean (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have included some quotes from the various sources that mention the letter. Perhaps someone from the NO camp could use them to cobble together a sentence or two that might be acceptable to them. I have selected the quotes to provide information about the signatories to demonstrate their standing and also to summarise the viewpoint of the signatories.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/charedi-rabbis-jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-fake-letter-rabbi-jonathan-sacks-1.469566 (dated 12/9/18).

“A letter defending Jeremy Corbyn, signed by 28 leading Charedi rabbis, has been circulated in London’s strictly-Orthodox community”.

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/confusion-over-pro-corbyn-letter-from-strictly-orthodox-rabbis/ (Dated 12/9/18).

Confusion over pro-Corbyn letter ‘from strictly-Orthodox rabbis’ “The letter, translated by the blogger If You Tickle Us, who lives in the neighbourhood, says it is “an open letter from leading Orthodox Jewish community leaders in the UK”, and publicly dissociates the strictly Orthodox community from recent attacks on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn”.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/charedi-jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-letter-signed-by-rabbis-1.469880 (Dated 17/9/18).

“Shraga Stern and Naftoli Friedman … have … taken responsibility for the letter”. “The pair told the JC they believe the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis is a “smear with a Zionist agenda”, describing it as “cruel and unjustified” “. “They also accused the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), the mainstream communal bodies that have been critical of Mr Corbyn, of “chutzpah”, saying they “only represent a very particular part of Jews who are pro-Israel” “. “Mr Stern, 33, and Mr Friedman, 48, told the JC they have acquired a five signatures since the letter was published, taking the total to 34”. “Mr Friedman is a member of the prominent Padwa family. Rabbi Ephrayim Padwa was among the signatories”.

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Anti-Israel-Satmar-group-forges-UK-rabbis-pro-Corbyn-letter-567022 (Dated 12/9/18).

ANTI-ISRAEL SATMAR GROUP FORGES UK RABBIS’ PRO-CORBYN LETTER 1. the signatures on the letter are those of “haredi leaders”. 2. Describes the letter as having “the support of the UOHC’s Principal Rabbinical Authority Ephraim Padwa, Senior Dayan (religious court judge) S. Friedman, and 27 others”. UOHC is Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/charedi-protest-board-of-deputies-jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-crisis-1.470042?highlight=Charedi+rabbis (Dated 20/9/18).

Charedi activists plan Board of Deputies protest in defence of Jeremy Corbyn “The same strictly Orthodox campaigners have argued the Board 'only represents a very particular part of Jews who are pro-Israel' “.

From the Ifyoutickleus blog “Whatever you think of the signatories, they at least represent real communities unlike JCC run by an individual representing no one the letter contains the signature of one of its most senor dayonim of the UOHC”.Burrobert (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2018 (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.

Recent addition (regards Kosovo and Bosnia)

I removed some recent taxt due to being written in a way that caused NPOV issues. Any thought how it can be improved? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we probably need several secondary sources before saying something as fact when it comes such a sensitive topic as war crimes. I'm not sure if there are any which mention Corbyn in relation to this content?Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I added the text from the EDM to illustrate why the backbenchers made the rather strong statement about “fraudulent justifications for intervening in a ‘genocide’ that never really existed in Kosovo”. I thought that Corbyn and the backbenchers should be given a chance to justify the claim contained in that statement. My intention was not to imply that David Scheffer made the statement or that the figures quoted are accurate. I was merely including text from the EDM. One way to include this text without adding a point of view would be to put it in quote marks so that it is clear that it comes from the EDM. Something along the lines:

“Unlike most Labour MPs at the time, Corbyn and a few other backbenchers opposed NATO intervention during the Kosovo War. On 14 December 2004 Corbyn and 24 other backbenchers signed a parliamentary motion "congratulating" the leftist journalist John Pilger "on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a ‘genocide’ that never really existed in Kosovo”. The motion stated that “David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with … inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed” but that “the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788”. The parliamentary motion led to later criticism that Corbyn had labeled Serbian war crimes as fabrications”.

Reliable media did have stories mentioning these figures at the time so we can include references to these if needed. One that includes the same figures as mentioned in the EDM is https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946. It does not appear to be the same article referred to in the EDM. We could also use the article mentioned in the EDM if necessary.

In summary, given the nature of the EDM statement about genocide in Kosovo I think we need to include Corbyn’s justification for making the statement. I don’t think it matters too much whether we quote directly from the EDM or bring in some secondary reference that makes the same argument.

By the way there seems to be something wrong with the reference to the article www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/uk-labour-frontrunner-queried-on-kosovo-motion-08-17-2015. It shows up with text about checking URL value.Burrobert (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The New Statesman article is by John Pilger, the journalist mentioned in the EDM, so that might not be the best. The Balkan Insight article works fine for me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The balkaninsight article is fine for introducing the criticism. However it does not mention Corbyn’s reason for making the claim about genocide in Kosovo. In order to explain why Corbyn made that claim we would either need to quote directly from the EDM or introduce some other reference.Burrobert (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yea the Balkan Insight works fine for me too. I'm not necessarily against including some explanation from the Corbyn side of why it was signed -- the gist being that Corbyn was criticizing rhetoric in the lead-up to a military op he opposed. I can't speak for Ktrimi991 but I also think there was a bit of an NPOV issue with essentially relying on the narrative suggested by the parliamentary motion. That Pilger criticized one possibly inflated number of Albanian deaths can be mentioned. What should not happen is exclusively implying the prominence of that one figure, while not mentioning that the fact that Milosevic was evicting Kosovars from their homeland for the sake of demographic engineering. That, narrative, I suspect, may appeal to anti-war types in comfy homes in the West who have never experienced fear of being massacred, but from my experience (not Albanian myself but quite familiar) it typically triggers outrage from Albanians as well as Croats and Bosniaks too for (they and also I) would argue, focusing on only one tree in the forest.--Calthinus (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We definitely should work in Corbyn's foreign policy positions over the year - they have been significant. Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Re the Balkan Insight, it works fine for me too. Based on the comments above I think we are near having a better wording of the text. @Calthinus: What excatly do you propose to add/remove/change to the text proposed by Burrobert on one of their comments above? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to go into detail about Scheffer (a living person, btw). Not sure exactly what I would write were it up to me. Leaving the first sentence the same, for the rest we could have " In 2004 Corbyn and 24 other backbenchers signed a parliamentary motion "congratulating" the leftist journalist John Pilger "on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a ‘genocide’ that never really existed in Kosovo”, leading to later criticism that he had labeled Serbian war crimes as fabrications.(cite BI) The motion noted in particular discrepancies between statements by the US ambassador for war crimes [me: is this an actual title???] about casualties and the later body count by the International War Crimes Tribunal. (cite whatever)" I think this reasonably portrays both sides without giving either control of the narrative.--Calthinus (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we not refer to the ambassador by his name David Scheffer and yes that was his title/position United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Re Bodney in my personal opinion, it seems unfair to have scores of people reading this article and now all many know/think of Scheffer is that he cited very likely false statistics and claimed genocide in the leadup to a war ("military operation", whatever). Naming him would give him right to some sort of balancing defense about hte stats he cited -- without naming him we can dodge having to go more indepth as that topic really isn't about Corbyn. That's my view at least. --Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added the wording suggested by Calthinus. While it is not as detailed as the wording I suggested it does cover the issue and readers can follow the reference to get more detailed information.Burrobert (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

mention in the media

Should we also say this page was mentioned here [[10]], in the talk page header of course?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh I don't have time to watch the whole thing (where did they mention us?). Imo I'd rather not but that's just my personal opinion, it seems that this is (typical for RT) polemic, and not going to make the talk page a better place. Also, I have to point out, I suppose it should be flattering to a bunch of losers, statistically shown to be disproportionately geeky men who've had recent breakups and are lonely, who spend their time arguing minutiae on one of many online encyclopedias to suddenly be elevated to "the agents of the deep state" and even "the 1%". Or the crusaders against them, take your pick. --Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

He does (14:04) she goes on to say this page is half about the Antisemitism accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There is not much on Corbyn apart from what Slatersteven mentioned above. Isn't there a "Wikipedia in the news" page somewhere? If so it would be more relevant to that page. The youtube link is to the show On Contact in which Chris Hedges interviews Helen Buyniski. They discuss Helen Buyniski’s article at Wikipedia rotten to the core. Other articles by her about Wikipedia are also available on her site. The article has a lot more information than is discussed in the video. It is highly referenced so the claims should be verifiable. I think it would be of interest to many wikipedia editors. There was a lot of information about Wikipedia and Wikimedia that was new to me. Here are some selections from both the article and video:

“The Wikimedia Foundation solicits donations from Wikipedia users every year, even though its expenses ($2 million to run hosting and servers) are vanishingly small compared to its profits. Wikimedia has increased its spending over 1000% since 2008 and sits on $97.6 million in assets as of 2016. The money has primarily gone toward expanding the Wikimedia bureaucracy, which grew from three permanent employees in 2006 to 174 by 2013. Fifteen executives took home six-figure salaries in 2015”.

The number of editors on Wikipedia peaked at around 100,000 in 2007 and dropped to around 30,000 by 2017. MIT researchers found the “complex bureaucracy” and “hard-line responses to newcomers’ mistakes” were the primary reasons why would-be editors opted not to stick around. In 2017 Purdue University found that 1% of editors made 77% of edits.

“In 2013, a British Petroleum representative was found to be supplying Wikipedia editors with company-approved text that eventually comprised 44% of BP’s page. The editing took place while a civil trial was underway which could have resulted in BP paying out billions of dollars to victims of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill”.

Wikimedia project director Sarah Stierch was fired in January 2014 after a screenshot emerged as proof she was selling her services as an editor.

In October 2013 editors found hundreds of sockpuppet accounts linked to a company called WikiPR which employed editors and an admin and claimed over 12,000 clients including Viacom, Priceline to minor firms whose pages were frequently deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s “notability” standards.

“The US government has been meddling in Wikipedia since at least August 2007, when a tracing program developed at the Santa Fe Institute called Wikiscanner discovered that computers at CIA headquarters had been used to make edits to entries on the US invasion of Iraq and the biographies of former CIA head William Colby and former presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. An FBI computer had also been used to edit the entry on the US’s Guantanamo Bay detention facility”.

“Voting machine manufacturer Diebold was caught deleting 15 paragraphs critical of its product, while the Vatican and the British Labour Party were also prolific editors”. Since then, the intelligence agencies have had to camouflage their edits or outsource them to third parties.

Big pharma's influence on Wikipedia is discussed.

The NY police department whitewashed dozens of Wikipedia pages in March 2015. This was detected by Wikiscanner. An entry on the death of Eric Garner, the Staten Island man whose choking death at the hands of Officer Daniel Pantaleo helped launch the Black Lives Matter movement, was altered to make Garner appear much more threatening than he was, while the chokehold which killed Garner was reduced to a “headlock.” The Sean Bell page was also mentioned. NYPD editors edited the NYPD entry itself, deleting large chunks from the “police misconduct” and “scandals and corruption” sections.

Various “pay-to-play” Wikipedia scandals are discussed. “The first major pay-to-play Wikipedia scandal dates back to February 2006, when it was discovered that US Congressional staff were scrubbing the biographies of their politicians”.

The pages for Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton are compared. “The article on Donald Trump, for example, gives ample space to discussions of the “Russiagate” investigation and even “Impeachment efforts,” though no impeachment proceedings have passed preliminary hearings; the Hillary Clinton article glosses over most of the controversies that dogged her political career, offering a sanitized account of the “email controversy” while entirely omitting the revelations from the WikiLeaks DNC document dump. “Some commentators” are given space to air their speculation on how Trump might be impeached without a vote, yet no voices are quoted taking Clinton to task for her role in rigging the Democratic primary. Nor do we find references to her role in plunging the once-progressive nation of Libya into violent chaos, or in appropriating billions of dollars’ worth of donations meant for Haitian hurricane victims”. “Such apparent political bias makes more sense in light of the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation contracted the Minassian Group, run by Clinton Foundation Chief Communications Officer Craig Minassian, to train Wikimedia’s own C-level employees, directors and managers in media strategy for the year 2014-2015.61 Minassian was further tasked with conducting a “communications audit” in 2016”. “Sashi Manek suggests it was precisely this Clinton Foundation hire that kept the Foundation’s page clean throughout election season of any references to its crimes against the people of Haiti during the period the Clintons were supposedly helping with hurricane recovery”.

The Philip Cross affair is discussed in detail.

Tony “Blair is a close friend of Wales, whose wife Kate Garvey previously worked as his diary secretary. Wales is fiercely defensive of his famous friends, and Blair’s own Wikipedia entry barely mentions Blair’s vast financial wealth (37 homes – 10 houses and 27 flats – worth £27 million, plus millions of pounds distributed through a network of companies); his PR work on behalf of dictators and human rights abusers in Kuwait, the UAE, Colombia, Egypt, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan;83 his utter failure to support Palestinian rights during his time as Middle Eastern peace envoy; and the human consequences – over half a million civilian casualties – of the Iraq invasion he continues to defend”.

“Wikipedia has a pattern of shutting out anti-establishment points of view on controversial topics, and it is here that it becomes important to distinguish between the traditionally-understood concept of Truth and Wikipedia’s version. Wikipedia relies on consensus, not ultimate Truth – the more sources support a particular view, the more likely that view will prevail. Wikipedia’s rules on what constitutes a reliable source have evolved over the years to exclude all “alternative” media outlets, particularly where politics and health are concerned. Even publications like Mother Jones and the Nation, which barely deviate from the mainstream, are consigned to the no-man’s-land of unreliable sources, while Vox and Mic – which didn’t exist 10 years ago – enjoy a place of privilege in the Wikipedia editor’s toolbox… When only mainstream sources count, status quo is easily mistaken for Truth”.

“The Croatian language Wikipedia exemplifies one danger of a consensus-focused model. Over the past decade, a group of far-right ideologues gradually seized control of the site in an internet putsch so thorough that the Croatian Minister of Education now actively discourages students from using it". “Their crimes [i.e. Ustaša] have all but disappeared from Croatian Wikipedia, and other articles have also been changed to reflect a strong bias against Serbs and LGBT people”.Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am not saying include this in the article, but in the label at the top of this talk page as having been mentioned in the media.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones deviates from the mainstream, just not nearly as much as Russia Today, a propaganda outlet. Perhaps we should have "reference to this page for Russian propaganda" :). --Calthinus (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about a letter from Orthodox Rabbis

I noticed this section has been archived without any concrete decision being taken. The last count was a 9:8 in favour of inclusion. What do we do, apply to the closure board and wait a year for an uninvolved editor to comment? --Andromedean (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You can request closure at AN, and it is also possible to unarchive - however the probable result of said closure would be no consensus - which defaults to omitting the information. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

For adding to the 'English Irony' section:

Not sure why this sentence is unacceptable to some people. Surely it is important?

In September 2018, one of the Zionist activists who Corbyn had criticised, Richard Millett, confirmed that Corbyn’s remarks were not so much directed at Jews in general but were actually directed at him "and the other Zionists with me".

It is a misrepresentation of what Millet said of Corbyn - per the title of the piece and the summary at the end - "I’m convinced Corbyn knew I was Jewish when he made his “English irony” comment. It’s still inexcusable if he didn’t know, as it could only apply to someone he doesn’t believe to be properly English. Had Corbyn been caught on film saying the same about a member of any other minority group he surely would have had to resign." - you want that in? Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative

I recently added the following text to the article as a subsection of the 2017 onwards section:

December 2018 The Integrity Initiative

In December 2018, the Sunday Mail revealed that The Integrity Initiative, a program run by the Scottish-based charity Institute for Statecraft, had used its official Twitter account to attack Corbyn, the Labour Party and Seumas Milne. The Integrity Initiative had received Foreign Office funding of £296,500 in the 2017-18 financial year and would receive a further £1,961,000 in 2018-19. The article stated that The Integrity Initiative was run by military intelligence specialists with an aim to counter Russian online propaganda by forming “clusters” of friendly journalists and “key influencers” throughout Europe who use social media to hit back against disinformation. The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan ordered an investigation into the reports and stated “Not only must [anti-Labour attacks by Statecraft] stop, I want to know why on earth it happened in the first place.”

The text has been removed twice. The reasons given were that it is recent, controversial, that the Mail on Sunday is not an RS, that it does not deserve its own section, that it has undue weight and that it might be better placed on the Labour party page. Firstly, the reported behaviour of the Integrity Initiative may be controversial but the facts do not seems to be in dispute. I am not sure the item requires its own heading but I could not find a suitable place that did not require creating a heading. The Sunday Mail is RS. Here are some points that I would like to mention to support its inclusion on the Corbyn page:

1. It has been covered by at least 3 reliable sources, Mail on Sunday (the Scottish paper not the other one), The Guardian and the BBC (in its interview with Alan Duncan).

2. The facts as provided by the sources do not appear to be in dispute (the interpretation of the facts a separate issue).

3. The behaviour of the Integrity Initiative was the subject of a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 12 December.

4. The organisation involved has received around ₤2M in public funds.

5. I agree that the item would be relevant to the Labour Party page but it is also quite relevant to Corbyn. Corbyn's name appears in the headline of both sources provided. He appears in some of the tweets mentioned in the sources. The debate in the House mentions him specifically.

What do other editors think of this? Burrobert (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is recent news. There are few reports after the initial one so it maynot satisfy weight issues. Under no circumstnaces does it justify a whole section until there are more developments an you should respect WP:BRD especially on an article with a 1RR restriction -----Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why on earth this passage about the Institute for Statecraft a UK government funded service being misused to attack her majesty's official UK opposition party and its leader could be seen to be undue weight.

Though recent, it has not only been covered by three sources (the BBC, Guardian and the scottish paper with no connection to the DM or DM's Sunday paper)...the facts that it happened are not in dispute, it has been actually confirmed by the governments Foreign Office Minister, Alan Duncan who has ordered an investigation.

The fact that the governing political party, whether whole, part or its agents should not be using a charity to spread propaganda, political and personal attacks in UK domestic politics against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition and the Labour Party under him clearly is a misuse and certainly warrants inclusion in this article. If it does not fit in another subsection, then it deserves its own. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got limited press coverage at one point in time - sorry it doesn't pass the test of weight no matter how strongly you feel on the subject. Its not all all clear that the govenrment funded the tweet attack on Corbyn, they excplictly deny it if you check the sources. It may become significant in the future, for the moment it isn't. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It possibly deserves a mention in passing, but deserves minimal weight and maximum precision in what is said or implied; bizarrely editors are trying to include more detail on this page than on the recently-created Integrity Initiative page. A more neutral description of what happened is "The government called for an investigation after Integrity Initiative, a charity founded to counter what it calls 'Russian disinformation' which had received DFID funding, was reported to have retweeted newspaper comment pieces criticising Corbyn's stance on Russia." Which is a whole lot less interesting than stuff about military intelligence and clusters of friendly journalists.

The Daily Record and its sister paper are inadequate sources for a political BLP period, never mind for contentious issues. (The Guardian article is fine). In general, it's important this article avoids giving significant weight to either WP:FRINGE theories that Corbyn is involved in Russian disinformation or WP:FRINGE theories that a few errant retweets from the little-followed account of a publicly-funded charity have significantly influence perceptions of Corbyn.

Also looks like we could do with a whole lot more content on more significant events in Corbyn's career since 2017 in that section... Dtellett (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If it must be included, something like Dtellett's suggestion would be acceptable to me, in amongst another section (can't see a current section which it would easily fit into though). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the sources I have included there have been a number of other reports from BBC, The Times, Daily Record, The Guardian and Sky News (and a host of other sources which would probably be considered non-reliable here). You can see these references on the page for Institute for Statecraft. In addition I don’t have access to this story by Edward Lucas who according to some sources has links with the Integrity Initiative. Subscription is required. Actually a page for the Integrity Initiative did not seem to exist when I was writing up the text. It has since been created and incorporated into the Institute for Statecraft page. As a result some of the description of the Integrity Initiative can be moved to that page which will make the section shorter. I will have a look at that. I don't have a solution to the placement issue other than creating a subsection.Burrobert (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For a person as widely covered as Corbyn - this seems to be a rather minor affair. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks as though the text has been removed again with a request to get consensus. To avoid the long process of an RfC let's discuss here. I have transferred some of the text to the Institute for Statecraft page so the text does not need to be as detailed as it was initially. We also need to decide on placement. Here is a suggested wording:

"In December 2018, the Sunday Mail revealed that the government funded Integrity Initiative had used its official Twitter account to attack Corbyn, the Labour Party and Seumas Milne. The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan ordered an investigation into the reports and the Integrity Initiative was the subject of a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 12th December 2018."

Please learn to indent your comments. If you check your references for a start it was not a parliametary debate it was a question to a minister. At this stage it is far from clear if it was official - the Initiative has denied it. We should await developments and see if this ever ends up as being significant -----Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have returned my comments to the format in which I meant them to be read. I wasn't replying to anyone. Regarding the term for what the MP's were doing when they were talking about the Integrity Initiative in the House of Commons, if there is a more correct term I am happy for it to be substituted. It is described as a debate on the theyworkforyou website and the term "debates" appears in the URL. The Hansard link which is https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-12-12/debates/298F9A3C-307A-40ED-9CB1-3B2A98F14165/InstituteForStatecraftIntegrityInitiative also contains the term "debates". Since it was being conducted in parliament I assumed "parliamentary debate" was the correct term. Perhaps we could use "debate in parliament" instead. The description of the twitter account as "official" comes from the dailyrecord and Guardian articles. If the II have denied it, then we can include a denial in the text.

If you want to ignore Wikipedia guidelines on how to format talk entries feel free. Asking a question in parliament is not singificant, let alone a debate. The twitter account is undoubtably official, it was undoubtably used but that does not mean yet that it was done as a deliberate policy by the Integrity Initiative. It may have been and we wait for the enquiry. Maintaining neutrality on political issues is critical. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• This has been widely reported, also outside the UK, so it should be included, IMO. (After all: to use state funding for partisan politics is usually a big no−no in Western democracies), Huldra (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Corbyn and the press

An interesting report from LSE:

• Three-quarters of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views, LSE study finds, The Independent,
• Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British press: From Watchdog to Attackdog, LSE

Not sure how to incorporate that, suggestions? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It specifies that it is just in the first months of his leadership, so it could be put in that part of the article. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Membership of Facebook groups in which antisemitic comments had been made" or "Membership of Facebook groups containing antisemitic content"?

Which of the above section headers is more fitting? I think the latter because it is shorter and contains the same information. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the latter too. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the former, because it is less vague. To me the latter might suggest that the FB groups only contained antisemitic content or that Corbyn might have joined the FB group because they contained antisemitic content. (Not being on FB i can not check the level of hate speech in those groups.) The longer title is more neutral because it takes a step back. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is is a subsection of a section called "Allegations of antisemitism and responses" though. To me this heading makes it neutral, but I can understand your concerns. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The second is more concise and factually the same as the first. Our goal is not to read like a Corbyn puff piece.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the first one as it's less vague or more neutral, or a combination of the two: "Membership of Facebook groups containing antisemitic comments". RevertBob (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we allow a response from the chair of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism to Corbyn's accusations that Israel controlled British MPs

I added the following content to the "Israel and Palestine" subsection in response to Corbyn saying that Israel had written some speeches by British MPs:

The chair of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism said in response that “Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories cast Jews as sinister manipulators, pulling the strings and subverting democracy.

Bodney removed it, saying "Adding this conspiracy theory to an article about the Corbyn heavily suggests that he does or might share this view (*or why add it*) ..but nowhere does Corbyn subscribe to this view ... so we should not suggest that Corbyn does or might shares this view".

I think we should have this response from a notable figure in this situation, to give context to Corbyn's views that Israel is controlling some MPs and why he thinks they are antisemitic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly relevant. Considering that Corbyn's 2010 is seen as promoting a conspiracy theory, certainly a rebuttal (well covered by sources) is relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

My preference is not to include the quote from Gideon Falter. Here are my reasons:

1. It appears that Corbyn’s speech was made in parliament. He was referring to one particular occasion on which he believed the speeches of other MP’s were co-ordinated with Israeli interests. He was saying that it appeared to him that an Israeli official had influenced (written) speeches made by British MP’s. This is therefore a criticism of the British MP’s and possibly Israeli as well for influencing British politics. It could only be considered as anti-Semitic if we conflate anti-semitism with criticism of Israel. Gideon Falter’s quote therefore distorts Corbyn’s speech and I don’t think we should assist in confusing criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

2. The article does not give Corbyn space to respond to the criticism. There is no indication it contacted Corbyn for a response. It would be unfair to include the quote without some response from Corbyn.

3. It appears that the article is largely based on a Daily Mail article. As we know the Daily Mail is deprecated. We should be careful about including material from the JTA article that is based on the Daily Mail article.Burrobert (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Burrobert, we must remember that this is aiming to be an encyclopedic article not a Corbyn puff piece. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither is it a puff piece for the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a small organisation of self-appointed individuals which is a bugbear to the Board of Deputies and whose main significance is as a supplier of quotes to the press. You could include that specific criticism from the CAA. But then, you could also include detail about the activities of such bodies as the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs which spends a lot of money covertly influencing various countries' politics (as shown in one of Aljazeera's undercover investigations), which would make the CAA's comment look a bit silly.     ←   ZScarpia   15:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A (marginally) notable Jewish body arguing that an unsubstantiated claim made by the article subject resembled anti-Semitic tropes is obviously more relevant commentary to include than an WP:SYNTHY reference to a documentary that makes separate allegations about Israel which don't actually support Corbyn's original WP:FRINGE claim that the Israeli ambassador wrote British MPs' speeches. Especially when other more bloated sections of the article finds space for very marginal commentators' open letters condemning media coverage of anti-Semitism as electorally driven. Dtellett (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

So, the pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn press runs with a story first run in the Daily Mail [11] where Corbyn, in 2010, says about a Parliamentary debate which followed the attack on the Mavi Marmara: "[British MPs] all turned up [to the debating chamber] with a pre-prepared script. I’m sure our friend Ron Prosor (the Israeli ambassador) wrote it.‘Because they all came up with the same key words. ...And the buzz-words were, “Israel’s need for security”. And then “the extremism of the people on one ship”. And “the existence of Turkish militants on the vessel”. ‘It came through in every single speech, this stuff came through." I very much doubt that Corbyn meant the sentence, "I’m sure our friend Ron Prosor (the Israeli ambassador) wrote it," literally. The press appears to be misunderstanding more use of "English irony." If you want to include detail about the incident in the article, I think you should actually quote Corbyn rather than merely stating the spin put on his words by the press, Ron Prosor or Gideon Falter of the CAA as fact.     ←   ZScarpia   22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think he didn't mean it literally? Do you have a source that says so? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me put this to you: when Corbyn refers to Ron Prosor as "our friend" do you think he means it literally; if not, why do you think so?

The point of quoting Corbyn is to allow readers to decide for themselves whether Corbyn was being literal or not. Hopefully, the sources did actually faithfully report what Corbyn said, even though, as far as I can see, not one of them is reporting from a neutral point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   11:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

One unreliable source quoting another unreliable source does not a reliable source make. TFD (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

JTA is a reliable source with strong editorial controls, making this reliably sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

TOI ([12]) reporting JTA is a RS. As is YNET - [13] - who is reporting this off of Reuters. So - two wire services (Reuters and JTA) carried these remarks. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we include the former Archbishop of Canterbury's comments?

Should we include the comments of George Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, that Jeremy Corbyn gives the impression that he doesn't like Jewish people? It was reported by The Daily Mail, Algemeiner and i24news. Zaki Naggar (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Carey said this yesterday - lets see how widely this is covered. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting, here is a link for reference. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Condensing last two paragraphs of lede

Would others be happy with condensing them into

Following the resignation of Ed Miliband in 2015, Corbyn entered the race for the Labour leadership. Despite having only just secured the necessary 35 nominations from fellow Labour MPs, Corbyn emerged as the leading candidate and was elected leader with a first-round vote of 59.5%. In 2016, Labour MPs passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn by 172 votes to 40. In the ensuing leadership contest, Corbyn retained the party leadership with an increased vote. In the 2017 general election, Labour again finished as the second largest party in parliament, but increased their share of the popular vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament.

to take up less space? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That is fine with me. However the detail that you are removing from the lede should be transferred to the main body of the article. For some reason the result of the 2017 election is not treated in much detail in the main body. For example this seems to contain more information about the election outcome than is currently in the main body: "Labour (under Corbyn) again finished as the second largest party in parliament, but increased their share of the popular vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament. It was the first time Labour had made a net gain of seats since 1997, and the party's 9.6% increase in vote share was its largest in a single general election since 1945".Burrobert (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the trimming looks good and agree with Burrobert regards transferring the detail about the 2017 election to where its missing in the main body. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your replies, I have made the edits and transferred the information to the main body. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Including data relating to the Labour Party

Two recent edits by me referencing disciplinary action against, and attitudes to, antisemitism to the Labour Party have been reverted on the grounds that this is not the subject of the article. If I could explain why I did it. A leader is somewhat judged by the actions and outcomes of the organization he or she leads. This is even made explicit in this article, where the lede contains an assertion that he has failed to take action against antisemitism in the Labour Party and, later, when Lipstadt asserts that he has emboldened and enabled antisemites and facilitated the institutionalization of antisemitism amongst progressives. If these accusations relating to his actions and impact on his organization are included, one must surely also be able to include information on the action that he has taken against antisemitism in the Labour Party and that antisemitism within it appears to have fallen rather than risen. This material is included on the SAME basis as the accusations: that of showing the impact of Corbyn's actions on the party he leads. Jontel (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Concur and I reinstated it -----Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If the source does not clearly refer to Corbyn, which it does not here, then it is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR for us to include this. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable explanation and I think you have made a good case for including it. If antisemitism in the Labour party is included as a criticism of Corbyn then data that elucidates the extent of the problem and how the party is dealing with the issue is also relevant. Corbyn's name won't generally appear together with these statistics because of the way in which the Labour Party deals with them via the NCC. However they are still relevant to the criticism raised against Corbyn. Readers can decide whether the picture provided by the statistics justifies the criticism. Burrobert (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

In the first case (disciplinary action), the sources (at least the one quoted here) don't say that Corbyn has done anything to affect the disciplinary action. In the second case, I apologise, I got mixed up and thought this was added to the Antisemitism in the Labour Party article which I had open at the same time. I'm still not convinced that it is relevant, given that the row has been over antisemitism among Labour members rather than its supporters, but it has a better case here than on the other page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

European Union.

There is a section on the European Union in Corbyns views. We need either another section showing his policies and actions to anything EU relatated or move the existing european union section to the main contents. In addition there needs to be some up to date stories regarding Corbyn and the EU as was the reason for the no confidence vote. IN fact anything from 2019 from the recent threats of resignations to him calling a no confidence vote in the government are not on here.

The opening section needs at least 1 paragraph on this, as it is a current issue within the party, and the UK overall. Pahaps after the paragraph on anti-semitism alligations there needs to be another paragraph explaining his conduct and views on europe, but in a quick summery with reference to other sections.

The EU is possibly the most prominent issue in politics right now in the UK yet this page says very little about corbyns approach to brexit. Just one section where he has expressed opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackcandle (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)