It's not such a wild accusation when one starts looking at the evidence that's in front of us, and the increasingly bizarre way you have of "interpreting" what is written in plain English in front of you. Shall we try and examine the sources properly, without the slurs you seem intent on introducing? 

 Roger Lewis 
 Rather disingenuous and misleading to try and dismiss him as a "tabloid journalist". He's a respected author and biographer whose biographies include: 

 *  
 *  
 *  
 *  
 *  
 *  1108 pages. 
 Now we've established he's more of a reliable source than your POV, let's examine what he wrote, your poor "examination" to one side: "concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank". I'm not quite sure how (or heaven forbid, why)  you try to wheedle around this: he was on television and it was as "Jewish conman Monty Casino". End of story and no matter how many linguistic somersaults you try it goes contrary to what you are trying to force into the article. 

 Evans 
 You say "again does not state the character was Jewish but states Sellers was attacked as being anti-Semetic." Could I ask on what other grounds, apart from a Jewish one, he could have been attacked as being anti-Semetic? Even given the low level of your other arguments, this is rather paper thin. Was he accused of it for portraying a Frenchman? A Hindi? A Scotsman? A Christian? Good grief! 

 Rigelsford 
 Despite your assertions to the contrary, Riglesford can still be used, but only with care, I think. The academic (rather than criminal) charges against him were that he invented quotes, which is not the case here. The books used is a listing one, rather than a full biography, and, from memory, refers to the "Jewish conman Monty Casino". 

 Northern Echo 
 Even you have managed to admit that this is reliable. 

 Advertising Archives 
 Again, a description (in the keywords) about the ads being connected or related to, "Jewish", "Jews" and "Judaism". This certainly isn't enough on its own (although it's difficult to see what else it is referring to), but as a fifth source, it suffices to reinforce. On its own, it's certainly stronger than your POV. 

 I don't know how much hot air and kb of needless debate has gone on here, but trying to argue against five sources with nothing more than your own POV to back you up is tiresome in the least. Your inability to read what the reliable sources have provided is ridiculous and not once have you even bothered to discuss the refutations of your arguments in the lengthy thread above. Your endless stance of ICANTHEARYOU appears to be based on nothing more than an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards one minor word. I am, after having to put up with your intransigence, running out of GF, but still have enough to suggest that you gracefully swallow your pride and withdraw the RfC: no-one will think any the worse of you if you do take such a magnanimous step. -