Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

How does this article not put more WP:WEIGHT on his anti-Semitic statements and actions?

I saw this article today: https://www.timesofisrael.com/before-elected-labour-leader-corbyn-was-part-of-an-anti-semitic-facebook-group/

I thought it was pretty interesting and came here to put it in the article. To my shock, I didn’t see a clear section? How is this possiable? This is one of the more notable points about him. honestly, I was pretty shocked not to see it in the lede. Casprings (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably because of WP:NOTNEWS? G-13114 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
He has a long history of this stuff that has been reported by WP:RSes. Moreover, WP:NOTNEWS clearly allows one to include something like the article discussed. There should be more WP:WEIGHT in the article.Casprings (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Also look at Antisemitism in the Labour Party, where more detail could be appropriate. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that, but I think it needs more WP:WEIGHT in this article. I would suggest we develop a section with a paragragh or so. The history is well known, it is reported by WP:RS, and it is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you on about his history of statements and actions construed as anti-Semitic or just the Facebook group? The Facebook group would probably only warrant a sentence or two in this article. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
History. Of course the facebook thing would be one ir two sentence. That said, this is another thing in a long history, which isn't part of the article.Casprings (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think more weight should be given, even if it is only a couple more sentences. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Despite the misleading headline, the source you provided does not accuse Corbyn of any anti-Semitic statements or actions. TFD (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Joining an anti-Semitic facebook group is an action. Thats what he did, per muliple WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Casprings, I suggest you read the article beyond the misleading headline. It does not say the group was anti-Semitic, but that it contained ant-Semites who messaged each other although Corbyn was unaware of that. TFD (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I would not take anything the (Personal attack removed) Rosenberg writes seriously or lend any credence to him, given his apologetics for a shameful exhibition in what-aboutery by Jake Tapper. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well does he not raise a good point as indicated by this section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The Board of Deputies seem to be taking the matter quite seriously. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/25/senior-labour-figures-defend-corbyn-row-antisemitic-mural A number of Labour MPs and the editor of the Jewish Chronicle and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust are pretty fed up as well. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/corbyn-faces-labour-mps-challenge-antisemitism-and-brexit It is beginning to look a little odd that the article fails to notice any of this.Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to have been improved. It's now claimed there is yet a third anti-Semitic Facebook group, to which Corbyn still belongs. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitic-facebook-group-mural-1.461353 Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will wait until there are more references before adding it to the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


There are a couple of others, though they're not great: https://www.thedailybeast.com/uk-labour-leader-was-in-three-secret-anti-semitic-facebook-groups and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5900120/jeremy-corbyn-apology-antisemitism-labour-mural/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Members of the shadow cabinet, notably Shami Chakrabarti and Sir Keir Starmer, are reportedly concerned and even distressed over the issue. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shadow-cabinet-members-visibly-upset-at-meeting-over-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-storm_uk_5aba2a01e4b054d118e6db5e Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I initially added content about Corbyn's response to antisemitism to the "Israel and Palestine" section of his foreign policy views, but now that there is more content, do others think it should be moved to its own subsection within the "Second term as LOTO" subsection? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the content whatsoever. The problem is drive-bag POV tagging when you can't make a single argument, if you know what I mean.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should have a subsection on Corbyn's association with and support for anti-Jewish groups and ideas, a separate topic for his support for anti-Israel groups and ideas. The coverage of his antisemitic appearing or perhaps actually antisemitic sttitudes and associations makes coverage necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate subsection for "Corbyn's response to anti-semitism"

It's inappropriate for this section to be under Israel, as it's a domestic issue. This article needs a new section about the antisemitism scandal, as it is one of the defining issues of Corbyn's leadership (if I'm not mistaken the BBC referred to it as such, I'm looking for sources). It is the defining issue for me as a British Jew. We knew about his connections before he became leader. Now he's leader, the antisemitism has come out. It was probably in the party before - after all, the party has a significant membership. However, Corbyn was a backbencher who inhabited the extreme fringe of the labour party, consorting with Holocaust deniers and Trotskyites. Nobody cared, because he was a backbencher. Now, he's in power, and his friends have come with him. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should have its own section, would you agree with creating a subsection "Corbyn's response to anti-semitism" inside the "Second term as Leader of the Opposition (2017–)" section? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that should be lack of response... I'd go with "Labour antisemitism scandal" or "Antisemitism in labour", which can have the main article pointed at Antisemitism in the Labour Party, and satisfies NPOV. I'm not sure about 2nd term, as it's been both terms. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a BOLD edit, moving the section into its proper place. I think a subsection with Corbyn's response could be included or his responses can be left interspersed within the text next to the accusations. I also think the section should be re-written to include a general description of the issues and the specifics moved to the sub-article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. The cries of "anti-semitism" are entirely based on Corbyn's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The rest, "some obscure Labour councillor said this or that", beyond Corbyn's control, are just tidbits added on after the fact to try and slick the propaganda wheels. The whole controversy circulates around Corbyn's lack of support for Israeli government policy and people who dislike that (and who were very, very comfy under Blair) throwing their toys out of the pram and saying "praise the IDF now or else we will call you an anti-semite!"

Without wishing to turn this into a debate over the individual user, rather than the issue at hand, I think it is pertinent to mention that the user who proposed this invoking their "deeply held feels" describes themselves openly on their Wikipedia page with userboxes which state "This user supports the Zionist movement" and "This user supports the Conservative Party (UK)" and literally displays a massive waving Israeli flag, so there may be a slight conflict of interest here. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That was a pretty lame attempt at excusing the inexcusable. Better luck on your future attempts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No personal attacks No More Mr Nice Guy. Well said Claíomh Solais, I am rather concerned that this page is being hijacked by an overtly biased political lobby. -- BOD -- 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
So accusing other editors of being part of a "overtly biased political lobby" is not a personal attack? Not to mention the irony, looking at both you fellas' userboxes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's try and leave personal attacks out of this please. What actual problems do you have with the content? I can't see any quotes from obscure councillors. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

NMMG's addition of a sub-section heading of "antisemitism" (in a section on "Policies and views") was ludicrously inappropriate, for suggesting that among Corbyn's "policies and views" we find "antisemitism". I've fixed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support for that. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a ludicrous accusation, as if the heading "economy and taxation" implies anything about his views about either. Your new header is plainly wrong, most of the accusations are not that he himself is an antisemite, but that his responses to it are inadequate.
Anyhow, I think the section should be re-written to describe in a more general way what the problems are and his responses, and the specifics should go to the antisemitism in the Labour Party article, perhaps under a "Jeremy Corbyn" header. The section here should go along the lines of "under his leadership Labour has come under increased criticism for antisemitism in its ranks and the way antisemitic incidents are treated. Corbyn has vowed to fight antisemitism in the party. Something something Chakrabarti report. He has been accused of associating with antisemites. His response. Several incidents [link to list] involving Corbyn have surfaced, including membership in facebook groups where antisemitic posts were made by other people, and arguing agains the removal of what many people saw as an antisemitic mural in London. Corbyn has denied any knowledge of the antisemitic posts and has said that on further inspection he sees it was antisemitic. etc"
Something along those lines. I think we should develop it here and then put it in the article. I object to returning to the unacceptable situation where the word "antisemitism" didn't even appear in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That suggested overview sounds good to me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not its own section; the implication that it has been a major (let alone defining) aspect of his tenure is absurd - most of the sources in the current section only mention him in passing and focus on one or two isolated incidents. But a much, much more important problem is that we need to be clear about who is making these accusations; the current section is a mess of WP:SYNTH, using a laundry-list of incidents with no connecting summary and (in most cases) no clear sources accusing Corbyn or Labour of antisemitism to crudely imply something that we currently lack sources for. I've slapped a tag on it for now, but in a few days I'll swing back around and remove anything that isn't unambiguously and directly cited to a high-quality mainstream source accusing Corbyn or Labour of antisemitism (and ideally, a secondary source reporting and summarizing those accusations), with an appropriate inline source in the article to indicate who is making the accusation. If they are really as 'major' as people are implying above, it should be easy to write a section that relies on those specific accusations rather than on giving undue weight to a laundry-list of seemingly trivial incidents. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The only reference which isn't a mainstream source is the HuffPost. I've just added an Guardian ref for the content it supported. I don't think any content in this section accuses Corbyn or Labour as a whole of antisemitism, so I don't think we need sources accusing him/Labour of it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If Corbyn and his political party are not in truth NOT anti-semite, and the is no real solid evidence for it, why does this biographic article of a living person contain so much that implies such accusations. -- BOD -- 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you guys for real? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are just a few examples from British and worldwide news sources. Let me know if you need a few dozen more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With any live politician, there is always a danger of recentism, but this issue in relation to Jeremy Corbyn has attracted such copious amounts of coverage in the MSM both in the UK and abroad since he was elected leader of the Labour Party, that to ignore it entirely could be seen as tantamount to a lie by ommision as in the mention by a media organisation at the top of this page. The challenge for editors is to balance scope, truth and propaganda to provide a balanced NPOV. It should go without saying that the article is not set in stone and can be modified at any time should it prove necessary. Oh and WP:FORUM. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We definitely need a section on this: there has been so much RS coverage of the matter. NPOV will be a challenge when dealing with a hot topic, so we all do the best we can. I think the current content is covering the right material, but, as is a common problem with live issues, it comes across as a disconnnected list of events. We need some structure, a narrative, that somehow encompasses the different narratives of different sides in the debate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Aquillion and -- BOD --, would you support No More Mr Nice Guy's proposed summary? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the desire to impose any Wikipedia editors summary, structure or narrative onto a disconnnected list of events over and above that supported by external sources whilst understandable is generally covered under WP:SYNTH. The title of the section already summarises this subsection in relation to Corbyn. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the sources support the general structure I suggested above, but I'm not married to it. Feel free to suggest something else. We're supposed to summarize, which is what I was trying to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. As I stated above, I feel the title summarises the subsection adequately and these are very specific items that directly involve Corbyn and his response to them. I don't argue that the individual points can't be better summarized or that they don't carry too much intricate detail. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Jewish

Block evasion by banned HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Corbyn has said he is of Jewish descent. (81.158.250.71 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

There's a reference here. He said "“Going back a lot further [than his mother], there is a Jewish element in the family, probably from Germany.” I wouldn't normally suggest including genealogical details like this, but given the current controversy do people think it's worth mentioning? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
If he has mentioned it in reference to the current controversy then maybe, but not otherwise I think. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Under the Donald Trump section it states 'Corbyn also called for Trump to be prevented from visiting the UK over his executive order banning visitors from certain majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.'. The cited source only shows Corbyn saying Trump should not be coming to the UK for a state visit. It does not show him 'calling from Trump to be prevented' from anything, nor does it give any reason why. This should be changed to a simple "Corbyn has stated that though relations with America should be maintained, Trump should not be making state visits to the UK." As that is all the source shows. --SgtLion (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked for other sources that provide additional details that back up this content? Please do so, and add the best of such sources that you find to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Allegations

I edited the Anti-Semitism section in an attempt to address the issues listed at the top of the section. Firstly, I fixed some of the language, grammar and sourcing errors to make the section more smooth and consistent with the rest of the article. I also added in some left-wing Jewish organizations that countered claims that Corbyn is or was anti-semitic, since the section only cited Jewish organizations that supported claims he was anti-semitic. Furthermore, I deleted one sentence that claimed Corbyn had "violated the Chakrabarti" Inquiry since it was unsourced and I couldn't find a source anywhere for it myself. Lastly, one reference was to a self-described neoconservative commentator who claimed that The Guardian was spreading "Fake News" when they published the letter of "academics" defending Corbyn, which didn't mention the fact that the commentator describes himself as a neoconservative. I added his self-description into the sentence that references him because without the proper context it seemed like an objective or unbiased commentator had denounced the letter. If any users want to discuss these changes, please feel free to talk here so we can come to a consensus; the changes should stay in my view because they make the section significantly less biased and heavy on one opinion/view. Redratatoskr (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with your edits. Lumos3 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about Corbyn commenting on posts, but removed the part about Chakrabarti as that is currently unsourced. I removed the neo-con description of Murray as it isn't in the source and (as far as I have seen) there aren't any articles saying that he is a neo-con in reference to his Corbyn comments. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey. I looked back at the old source and it turns out it was a reproduction of a different source, PipeLineNews, which did an interview with Murray. The quote I was citing was in the first source I used, but it was hard to see. Therefore, I re-added the sentence as well as the PipeLineNews source, including the portion where he describes himself as a neoconservative in the quote -- I would argue that it's important that readers of the article are aware that the commentator himself is (neo)conservative, which could possibly (but not necessarily) influence his views on the letter in The Guardian defending Corbyn. It should be up to the readers of the Jeremy Corbyn article to come to their own conclusions about it, as opposed to leaving out his self-description, because it could be misleading to readers who might think he was just analyzing from a completely objective point of view like AP or something. Hopefully that's sufficient to keep the description so readers can decide for themselves if he has any bias/influence or not. Redratatoskr (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Murray is a neocon at all, just whether its warranted to describe him as such in the context of these comments, which don't directly relate to foreign policy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Redratatoskr:I am very confused as to the relevance of Murray being a neo-con has to this discussion. If there are left-wing commentators, do we have to provide that same classification every time we quote them? You're a self-described Marxist, should you start signing off as one every time you make an edit? Alssa1 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The whole section is excessive - this is a sumamary article it should be about a paragraph long at most. It is also written as an essay simply assembling anything editors can find a source four and reads like synthesis. It is drawing conclusions by using primary sources. I suggest a cull -----Snowded TALK 16:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy with a summary paragraph, but we should discuss any proposed summary on here first as it is likely to be v controversial. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Letter to Jewish Chronicle (in Responses to allegations of antisemitism)

It says: 'They stated in the letter, "Your assertion that your attack on Jeremy Corbyn is supported by ‘the vast majority of British Jews’ is without foundation. We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong."'.

But it's not stated what attack the Jewish Chronicle is supposed to have perpetrated. I imagine something was deleted, or moved to a later section. In particular, the 'responses' section precedes the first section that mentions Corbyn's views on Israel and Palestine; and I think the 'responses' section probably ought to follow some section stating the allegations.

My feeling is that there should be a brief section summarising these allegations, at the end of the section 'Policies and Views'; and that the 'responses' section should follow that. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Garageland66 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the London Labour Briefing section

There seem to be a number of problems in the London Labour Briefing section. I have listed these below in roughly the order in which they occur.

1. A lot of this is about the organisation itself rather than Jeremy Corbyn. The only information about Corbyn is that he was on the editorial board, a contributor and maybe general secretary. Shouldn’t the rest be put on the page for the organisation? There is no evidence provided that Corbyn had anything to do with the editorial or letter mentioned so it seems like innuendo rather than objective fact. If such evidence exists it should be included.

2. The following is not an English sentence, although it is a good imitation of James Joyce. There also is no reference provided to the editorial mentioned. “It has been reported by several sources that he served as its general secretary for some time but Corbyn later claimed these reports were inaccurate after it came to light following the Brighton hotel bombing by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the editorial board of London said the bombings showed that "the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it" “.


3. The following contains some unnecessary repetition and unhelpful references. Firstly it is stated that “[i]t has been reported by several sources that he served as its general secretary for some time”, then, later in the same paragraph, this is repeated and three sources are given. The first references is not to an article, but only to The Economist newspaper. The second reference does not seem to say what is claimed. The third reference is a dead link. I expand on the three references below.

4. “The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as general secretary” - the link is only to “The Economist. Economist Newspaper Limited” not to the specific article mentioned.

5. “as did Wolmar, Goss and Lansley as part of their 1989 book "The rise and fall of the municipal left”” - the book referred to mentions Corbyn on pages 16, 18 and 21 but, as far as I can tell, only states he served as part of the editorial board and launched the campaign ‘Target 82’.

6. “a Parliamentary profile service profile on Corbyn” - what is a “Parliamentary profile service profile”? It sounds redundant. Also the link to the source is broken. 

Burrobert 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
forgot to sign

Burrobert 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Are the Morning Star and "Ekklesia" non-tabloid sources?

As per WP:BLP, we shouldn't use tabloid sources for WP:BLPs. Are the Morning Star and "Ekklesia" non-tabloid sources? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They are not tabloid sources. Tabloid journalism refers to a style of journalism that emphasizes sensationalism, not the specific printing format. They are called that because historically these publications used a tabloid format, but so did some quality sources. TFD (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That being said, neither are reliable or quality sources. The reliable sources noticeboard has an interesting discussion on the Morning Star: it seems to be that it's not considered unreliable as such, but that politics articles should generally use it with caution (i.e. not for controversial claims) and use more reliable sources when they are available. Ekklesia seems to be a blog for the Ekklesia think tank, but the fact that one of its founders (Jonathan Bartley) is the co-leader of the Green Party right now raises a few questions re: bias and COI, but there doesn't seem to be much information about its reliability online. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to use sources like The Spectator and the Telegraph etc which are well known for their political bias against the Labour Party, then you can't really argue against using sources which are politically biased the other way. The argument is whether they are notable or not. Well one is a well respected thinktank, and the other is one of the longest standing newspaper titles in the UK which has been established since 1930. As for the tabloid argument, tabloid is merely a size format for newspapers, The Guardian is now a tabloid, but I wouldn't see anyone arguing against their inclusion. G-13114 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think much can be learned from the interesting discussion eight years ago. Most of the participants were involved in editing the EDL article and an editor wanted to use a headline that had been clearly cherry-picked. In reliable sources, context always matters. In this case the Morning Star is used as a source for what it and its columnists said. Whether or not these opinions should be mentioned is another issue. But there are no rs issues not to use them. TFD (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
In a nation where nearly all the media, especially newspapers are Right of Centre biased, including Jewish Media, its good to balance it with appropriate dissenting voices-- BOD -- 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The Morning Star is no more partisan than the The Jewish Chronicle. There is no evidence that any of these sources meet Wikipedia's definition of tabloid such as the Daily Mail which the community has deemed unreliable because of its inaccurate reporting. RevertBob (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn was targeted in Finsbury Park attack

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/finsbury-park-attack-darren-osborne-kill-jeremy-corbyn

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42875216 SharabSalam (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone add this, thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Allegation about Tunisia

hello. This reporting recently removed was imo a violation of both wp:blp and wp:npov and also wp:undue .. it has now been inserted and removed twice, best thing under discretionary sanctions is to now discuss it, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It was reported in all of the major news outlets. Exzachary (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, that Exzachary has been blocked 24hrs for edit warring this disputed content into the article, where it currently remains. It is here Jeremy_Corbyn#Wreath_laying_at_Munich_terrorists'_graves even the header is a wp:blp violation imo Govindaharihari (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I think at the very least the subject heading is an issue. I'm not sure about the sourcing either - maybe regular editors can comment further on Daily Mail and Huffington Post. Seraphim System (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The huff is simply reporting the daily mail article which is the original and is not even a reliable source on wikipedia, the mail is quoted and mentioned twice in this content. How such attacking content can remain in a wikipedia blp for more than even a minute beggers belief. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources, I will re-add with better ones. What subject heading would you suggest? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Politics Home is not a reliable independent source. I sincerely DOUBT that any report using the DAILY MAIL as a SOURCE is reliable either.-- BOD -- 08:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Issues surrounding sources reporting on what the Daily Mail said aside, I don't understand why we are relying on such weird sources reporting on what the Daily Mail said when according to Exzachary it's on the Guardian, BBC etc. I appreciate Exzachary is currently blocked but it seems someone else can dig up these references if the claim is true. Of course Exzachary is less likely to have been blocked if they had spent their time finding sources like the BBC or Guardian rather than editing warring relying on Daily Mail and Huffington Post. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW sourcing issues aside, the current version does a very bad of explaining the chronology since one of the sources is from 2017. From what I gather, this first became an issue in 2017 during the election campaign. The response from Corbyn was that it was at another memorial and I guess with all else going on in the election it wasn't talked about much more. Then just recently now in 2018 the Daily Mail claim their evidence from their 2018? visit prove that the the memorial Corbyn claimed he was laying the wreath at in 2014 was quite far from where photos seemed to show him. But this isn't explained in the article which seems to suggest the whole thing was only an issue in August 2018. Getting back to sourcing, from what has been presented thus far, it sounds like no one else (who qualify as a RS) has thus far visited the site. I'm not even sure if any other RS has analysed the evidence and come to their own conclusion. I would actually agree if no one else has at least analysed the evidence, bearing in mind the different time frames etc, but the only thing that has happened is some have reported on Daily Mail have said, then it probably doesn't belong. I mean heck, even for sources just reporting what the Daily Mail said, I'm still waiting for these "reported in all of the major news outlets" since even putting aside the BBC or the Guardian, while we have the Daily Telegraph it's not on the 2018 claims but the 2017 stuff. Where are these reports in the Daily Telegraph or the Independent or whatever? Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Corbyn laying a wreath is not notable and fails UNDUE too. Corbyn being attacked in the Daily Mail (yet again) is also marginal (to say the least!) for UNDUE. But any justification for covering that story here (and it's marginal) is based on it being about the DM's attack story, not the wreath. And if it's going in here at all, we need to keep that DM ref. WP:DAILYMAIL is clear that it's not a blanket ban, and this is one of those permissible cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, why does WP:DAILYMAIL now point to an essay (which thus carries zero weight), rather than the original RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You can see the discussion in the edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL&action=history -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
When I came to this article, it made the extraordinary claim that Corbyn "also laid a wreath for Black September". Which is completely bogus. The Daily Mail proved only that Corbyn was seen under a roofed structure at the cemetery holding a wreath, and that the building was closer to the Black September grave than the grave for the victims of the airstrike. By what they estimate is 15 yards. They do not show nor allege that he laid the wreath at the terrorists' memorial, but just play at innuendo for entertainment. My fix is here. I definitely agree that if you want to talk about a story in the Daily Mail, you cite it. If the Daily Mail is beneath contempt for citation, maybe you should question whether you should be talking about the story in the first place. That said, I voted in the RFC to keep Daily Mail as a source overall -- the article is out there, the articles referencing it out there, and people will see the biased reports whether we explain them or not. I prefer to just put up an orange traffic cone and say "look, here's what they're saying, and you're perfectly capable of reasoning out yourself that it's ridiculous". But I'm not going to cry for the loss if this two-day wonder story gets sent back where it came from. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"One picture places Mr Corbyn close to the grave of another terrorist, Atef Bseiso, intelligence chief of the Palestine Liberation Organisation." JC has to be quite careful where he steps these days, doesn't he, especially with a Daily Mail cemetery yardstick in pursuit? And it took them only four years to work out the measurements there? Topical news, indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed some content about the Israeli bombing being condemned by the UN as it was not in any of the sources about Corbyn, so was WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ve added an article written by Corbyn himself where he describes the event and leaves no doubt the Daily Mail is correct. It would have saved them a trip to Tunisia!
The link to original DM article was just removed. I believe if the story is here bc of other sources, the initial article should be included even if it isn’t agreed it is RS on its own. Kigelim (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Garageland66, I suggest you discuss on the talk page before removing well-sourced and discussed content. Corbyn is the Labour leader, and things that Labour do are quite relevant to this article, especially as (seems to have been removed for some reason), it prompted a senior Labour MP to call him a racist, and Corbyn defended the changes in a newspaper article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of Israel has just condemned Corbyn's actions in a tweet, so it's become quite newsworthy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-benjamin-netanyahu-munich-massacre-terrorists-wreath-twitter-antisemitism-a8490431.html However, it's not entirely clear that Corbyn knew whose grave he was laying a wreath on. The Mail photos make it obvious that it was the grave of Salah Khalaf, aka 'Abu Iyad', at that time No.2 in the PLO, who has been alleged to be the 'Munich mastermind,' though the ostensible plan at Munich was to gain the release of Palestinian and Baader-Meinhof prisoners by exchange and we don't know to what extent the murder of the hostages was taken as read. But Corbyn claimed that the four 'martyrs' in that part of the cemetery were 'killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991.' In fact only one, Atef Bseiso, a PLO diplomat and liaison officer with Western intelligence agencies, was killed in Paris, and that was in 1992, and the gunman was probably working for the Abu Nidal Organisation and the Israelis denied responsibility. The other three, Khalaf, Haed Abdel Hamid and Fakri al-Omari (al-Omari also allegedly having planned the Munich attack), were killed in Tunis in 1991 by a rogue PLO bodyguard who had supposedly defected from Abu Nidal's faction but was almost certainly still working for Abu Nidal. The PLO delegate at the UN claimed he might just as easily have been working for the Israelis, but that is improbable. So, whatever Corbyn's PLO hosts told him, it's likely that none of the four 'martyrs' was actually killed by Mossad. And only one was killed in Paris. So Corbyn seems to have been a bit clueless. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so Netanyahu and Corbyn said it was false and added "What deserves condemnation is the killing of over 160 Palestinian protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces since March, including dozens of children.". If we are going to cover it, and I'm not convinced this has any lasting encyclopedic significance, Corbyn's statement would have to be included as well. Seraphim System (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that so far, it doesn't seem like the Netanyahu/Corbyn spat has has enough significance to be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense - it is a highly contentious current news item without any reliable third party sources as to its nature and significance -----Snowded TALK 08:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense - there is no shortage of reliable sources. Exzachary (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, Google search for: "jeremy corbyn" + "wreath" + "2018" now giving "About 1,590,000 results." Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow. No third party sources when there are thousands of articles covering it from all-sides of the political spectrum internationally.Super-Mac (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately Corbyn has now made so many contradictory claims that he cannot be telling the truth. He wrote in the Morning Star in 2014 (in an article the Morning Star has conveniently deleted in the last day or so) that wreaths were laid at the 1985 air-raid memorial and at the graves of 'others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991,' which is a fictitious claim: Khalaf, Adbel-Hamid and Al-Omari were killed by an Abu Nidal gunman (who was captured alive at the scene by PLO fighters and Tunisian police, after a stand-off) in Tunis in 1991. Atef Bseiso was killed in Paris, but in 1992 and probably again by the Abu Nidal organisation, not Mossad, who had apparently taken him off their hitlist some years earlier.

Yesterday Corbyn told Sky that there was a wreathlaying, 'but I don't think I was involved,' an absurd thing to say. Today he told a Press Association reporter, in one of those rather revealing interviews where he gets tetchy and aggressive with a woman who dares to question him (and you shudder to think what he's like at home), that he himself laid a wreath, but only at the memorial to PLO staff killed in the Israeli air raid of 1985, and that (to cover the awkward Black September angle) 'there are many other people buried in that cemetery.' Which is a lie, since someone has retrieved, from the Facebook account of the Tunisian Embassy to the Court of St James, the photos of the wreathlaying at the air-raid memorial (which is not in the cemetery) that day, and Corbyn is standing right at the back of the crowd, almost like it's nothing to do with him, and clearly did not lay the wreath. On the other hand, in the photos of the ceremony at the graves of the 'four martyrs', Corbyn is right at the front, he is handed the wreath, holds it preparatory to laying, and then stands back reverently after laying it.

The red canopy structure that faces the graves of the 'four martyrs' (Khalaf, Abdel-Hamid, Al-Omari and Bseiso) is asymmetric. Only on the side facing the four graves do the uprights supporting the roof have those diagonal struts at the top, and that is where Corbyn is standing when he takes charge of the wreath, and the plinth and plaque directly in front of Khalaf's grave is visible at the bottom of some of the pictures. Corbyn laid a wreath at Khalaf's grave. That would be all right, up to a point, if he were honest about it. At the time of his death, Khalaf was committed to recognition of Israel and a two-state solution, so he had progressed since the days when he apparently ordered the Munich attack as a Black September leader. But Corbyn isn't honest about it. Speaking to Channel 4 News today, he tried to claim that Khalaf was killed in the 1985 air raid, which would come as news to friends or family of Khalaf, who lived on until his murder by an Abu Nidal gunman six years later. And, of course, Corbyn previously claimed in print that Khalaf was killed by Mossad in Paris, which didn't happen either.

https://twitter.com/LatestMessiah/status/1029337340026806272 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45185931 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-95TdSUG_k https://twitter.com/VJRichMcCarthy/status/1029351739005313024

Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The above opinion piece indidates why we have to be very very cautious about including this material. The name 'wreathgate' was coined in an opinion piece by the Spectator which is not a neutral party in British Politics. We have no idea how this will be reported in any reflective third party sources. Personally I don't think it should be there yet based on the Daily Mail reports but it has been picked up by others now so something is legitimate but we need to keep ourselves to a balanced and brief reporting of facts on any current news item. I'm reduced the text accordingly not to mention removing two 'actually's -----Snowded TALK 18:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether you agreed with Wreathgate or not is irrelevant. For now, and possibly in the future as well, it is a valid Wikipedia page so you have no business removing the link to it. If you feel strongly enough then you should take your arguments to Talk:Wreathgate, but while that page stands, it is related to this content.Clivel 0 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Its a name created by a right wing journal which campaigns against Corbyn, supporting it here unless it is established in reliable third party sources its dispoutable. The Wreathgate page is new, controversal and is nominated for deletion. If you check the talk page you will see that the name is considered dubious. -----Snowded TALK 19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
An AfD started by Snowded, and a talk section title "Dubious" started by.... Snowded. While there is a discussion to be had on the name - Wreath-gate vs. Wreath row, Wreath controversy, or some other permutation - the event itself is receiving wide international coverage and has significant potential political implications for Corbyn.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
(i) the name is propoganda (ii) it has now been picked up by more than the Daily Mail so it is legitimate to mention it (iii) a separate article is premature which is why I triggered the Afd. At the very least it will have to be renamed as its a clear PoV violation to use a politically charged name unless it is picked up by neutral sources -----Snowded TALK 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Snowded, I was wondering what was your definition of "secondary"? Does that imply that you see the Daily Mail article as "primary" here? And are we bound to use only "reflective" sources? What does that mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source in respect of political matters - something well established on wikipedia. So to estabnlish relevance we need to go elsewhere. It has now been reported in main line media so some reference is justified. But the name, and the relevance or impact is all too current. -----Snowded TALK 19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Snowded, I was wondering what was your definition of "secondary"? Does that imply that you see the Daily Mail article as "primary" here? And are we bound to use only "reflective" sources? What does that mean? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I just cited Jeremy Corbyn speaking to the PA, Jeremy Corbyn speaking to the BBC and Jeremy Corbyn speaking to Channel 4 News, plus photos from the Facebook account of the Tunisian embassy. I previously cited a response by a foreign head of government which has been widely reported. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And around that you wove a lot of opinion, polemic and interpretation - my comment stands -----Snowded TALK 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't stand at all. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please remember that PLO isn't considered as a terrorist organisation SharabSalam (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The PLO is the de facto government of Palestine, which has observer status at the UN. Black September was, however, an arm's-length branding exercise to give the PLO (Fatah) a degree of plausible deniability for the terrorist actions they carried out. Black September's leaders, Salah Khalaf ('Abu Iyad', Arafat's deputy) and Fakri Al-Omari ('Abu Mohammed'), were, and always remained, senior members of the PLO. Mohammed Daoud Oudeh ('Abu Daoud') was the operational commander of the Munich team. He accompanied them as far as the fence of the Olympic Village and then retired to his hotel to await events. He stated in his memoirs, published in 1999, and in a PA interview in 2005, and in a 2006 Irish Times interview with Lara Marlowe (American, UCLA and Oxford educated, awarded the Legion d'Honneur by France in 2006 for her reporting on the Middle East), that in summer 1972 he was sitting at a cafe table in Rome with Khalaf and Al-Omari and they talked about the IOC's refusal to allow a Palestinian team to appear at the Munich games, and Al-Omari suggested that Palestinians could perhaps participate, for publicity purposes, by kidnapping Israeli athletes and holding them hostage. According to Abu Daoud, Khalaf liked this idea and asked Daoud to organise a team and carry out the plan. Daoud said that Khalaf smuggled the weapons (AK47s and grenades) into Germany as checked airline baggage -- you could do that in those days, hence modern security precautions. Daoud kept the weapons in sports bags in left-luggage lockers till needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/massacre-in-munich-1.1004843?mode=amp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Daoud
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10500189
https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/1029643057103290368
(Daoud died in Damascus in 2010 -- the Israelis never did kill him -- and was buried at the Palestinian refugee camp at Yarmouk, which Assad, whom Corbyn supports, lately blew apart. https://www.channel4.com/news/death-and-destruction-in-yarmouk-inside-syrias-largest-palestinian-refugee-camp)
Khalaf, as Arafat's No.2, helped steer the PLO towards recognition of Israel and negotiation. Photographs -- mea culpa, they come from the Facebook account of the Palestinian mission to Tunis, not the Tunisian mission to the Court of St James -- clearly show that Corbyn laid a wreath at Khalaf's grave. Because Corbyn has dissembled and obfuscated about this, claiming that Khalaf was killed by Mossad in Paris (which he wasn't), then claiming he didn't lay a wreath, then yesterday admitting that he did lay a wreath at the grave of 'Arafat's No.2', but that Khalaf was killed in the Israeli air raid of 1985 (which he wasn't), we just do not know what Corbyn thought he was doing. We do know that Gordon Brown, in an untypical intervention, has said that Corbyn 'has to change.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45200674
Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Is there still a 1RR restriction on this page? The editing notice is stil in place, but the only logged restriction I could find has expired. Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2015 Seraphim System (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Facebook acceptable regards WP:RS in this WP:BLP

A Facebook link has been added. Is it suitable re: WP:FACEBOOK for this page? ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The page is referenced by the BBC article. It contains the pictures that started the whole mess. Facebook in this case isn’t the source but the subject. Kigelim (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so the photographs "revealed by the Daily Mail" were just there, plastered over a Facebook page, for 4 years, yes? Wow, some reveal. Investigative journalism at its finest. Or did the DM have it's own, specially provided, set of photos, complete with TERROR GRAVE cemetery measurements? It's not immediately obvious to whom the photos in that montage are attributed, or their copyright status. But I don't see the word "Facebook" mentioned there?Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You can see the date on these pictures. October 2014. DM just tried to explain the topography which the BBC did much better in their short video. The trigger is the Facebook pictures. Kigelim (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Can facebook be used as source re: WP:FACEBOOK: Sometimes. But only "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Is not subject of this Article Corbyn, not the Embassy or the Allegation. Also you need a facebook account to access the page, which many people refuse to do. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I can see the date of which pictures? Where? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC):
The album have a date. Kigelim (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing those are indeed the one set of photos that were taken. But I was just asking for evidence that these were used by the Daily Mail? Perhaps judging by eye, regardless of any date is enough? But I'd be surprised if that was enough here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The FACEBOOK is WP:PRIMARY and could be used with care --Shrike (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
With care, maybe. But WP:FACEBOOK says, for use as a reliable source: "Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." But what does it add to what's in the Daily Mail article, which gives no credit to the embassy or to Facebook? The first question is - can we still use the DM article as a source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail doesn't pass WP:RS, certainly not for a WP:BLP

Per consensus here, the Daily Mail is never a reliable source; while there are limited exceptions for its opinions in certain uncontroversial situations, the high standard required by WP:BLP means we cannot cite it here, fullstop. If something there has reliable secondary coverage, we can cite that secondary coverage, but it's unequivocal that the Daily Mail itself cannot be used as a source here. Note that since this is a clear-cut WP:BLP violation, the WP:1RR restriction does not apply to any edits removing the Daily Mail or things exclusively cited to it from the article. (Also, since my objection is to the source specifically, I have no objection to it being restored as long as it's cited to a source other than the Daily Mail itself.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Using Daily Mail here, besides being clearly wrong, is also not needed - everything the DM broke and reported on was subsequently reported on (quoting the DM + followup investigations / interviews) by more reliable outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Well strictly other sources reported the Daily Mail's claims so we need to be careful how much authority we give it and which sources we use. Some are blatently jumping on band wagons -----Snowded TALK 06:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Many other sources vetted the DM's claims. A small minority (mostly when this just broken) attributed their reporting to the DM - but most reporting is not attributed to the DM. As for jumping on the bandwagon.... If there is a band marching here on this issue it only establishes it is DUE for extensive coverage in the Corbyn article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Dubious - but lets see how the sources ban out on this one over the weekend-----Snowded TALK 07:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ve just added a direct link to the Facebook album where the Palestinian embassy published the pictures 4 years ago. At this point I believe DM can be mentioned as the one who broke the story but not more than that. The BBC video show clearly Corbyn was holding the wreath near BS memorial which was DM reporting.
These are the facts. Their interpretation can be attributed to the different articles. Kigelim (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that the Facebook link adds anything. Aren't all the images available elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Previous consensus was that the Daily Mail article, however inaccurate, instigated the whole fuss and so should be allowed to stand as the "original source". I'm not sure that one can claim that the embassy posting photos on Facebook kicked off the whole row, can one? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In situations like that (where there's an original source that is not, itself, WP:RS but which has been reported in reliable sources), the appropriate thing to do is to cite it via those secondary sources, using their framing, content, and tone as our source. We can definitely cite reliable sources discussing and reporting on the content of unreliable sources, but that still doesn't allow us to use the unreliable source directly. (This comes up a lot with eg. a newspaper article discussing some tweets - we generally couldn't cite the tweets directly, but we can cite the newspaper article. This is similar.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Should we try wherever possible use exclusively Neutral Reliable Sources (very difficult with Corbyn), ones without exaggerated POV either way. Its very easy to find a bandwagon of biased reports on a active politician that 90% of the press despises. For instance the BBC's Corbyn wreath row explained and Channel 4's FactCheck: Jeremy Corbyn and the wreath row at channel4.com explains the story in an unbiased manor, the is no need for the actual Daily Mail story. Especially when the source was a daily mail article based on 4 year old facebook pictures. A lot of non BLP detail was being added. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC) extra extra .... I believe we should be extra careful starting with any report which might considered biased (in any direction)... as it is likely to lead to editors trying to 'balance' the story to meet their interpretation of the truth. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the response from the Munich widows be included?

  • Ankie Spitzer and Ilana Romano are the widows of two of the Israeli athletes murdered by terrorists whose memorials Corbyn visited in Tunis. Quoting them as the victims and the effect that Corbyn's visit has on them is completely relevant to Corbyn's "wreath laying". To remove this paragraph on the specious ground that it is WP:COATRACK is completely unwarranted. Seraphim System needs to restore the factual, sourced and relevant material arbitrarily removed unless able to provide a compelling argument as to why the impact of Corbyn's visit on the victims is not relevant Clivel 0 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
There's a Wreathgate article where that type of details would be reasonable; I'm not sure why such excessive detail about the latest scandal-of-the-day is relevant to this biography of Jeremy Corbyn. I oppose including it here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
On what grounds do you oppose including it here?For the leader of the official opposition and possible future Prime Minister of the UK to honour terrorists with a visit and possibly a wreath, then how can the victim impact be excessive detail? Especially given that said leader stated "I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere" yet he has completely ignored the real victims of the Munich massacre who are now speaking out.
As for Wreathgate, that is pure sensationalism so it probably should and likely will be removed. Clivel 0 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this comes a bit close to BLP which also applies on talk pages - he said what he said, but this source doesn't say he ignored anything [7]. There is a formal denial [8]. Have third party media independently confirmed this. Even the above TOI article is using the Daily Mail as a source. Seraphim System (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually the first source you refer to quotes the widows as saying "We do not recall a visit of Mr Corbyn to the graves of our murdered fathers, sons and husbands" which to my understanding of English means - ignored. By contrast Corbyn was by his own admission at the graves of the dead terrorists for a memorial in which, again by his own admission, he may or may not have taken part in; your second reference confirms this. It is rather disingenuous of you to even alluded to what I wrote as being BLP given that the sources you provide actually corroborate what I wrote Clivel 0 (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Corbyn himself admitted he was there during the Black September wreath laying. Daily Mail broke this (just because they are unreliable, doesn't mean they are always wrong (they are however wrong frequently enough we don't use them)... Their wide readership, low fact checking bar, and willingness to cover scandal actually makes them a good "launching point" for an outlet to pass info on a scandal... If it sticks, it will get picked up by others), but this since has moved to the Guardian,Telegraph, BBC, BBC, Independent, NYT, etc., etc.
Nothing should be inclued until there are reliable third party sources as to its narue and its significance. -----Snowded TALK 08:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Want to take the BBC to RSN? There's no shortage of RSes reporting on Corbyn's tribute / presence and the widows speaking up.[9] Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
For this type of article, I think it goes without saying that every quote of someone saying something negative about a politician can not be included the article. I don't think User:Clivel 0 statement on this talk page is supported by the source - I don't see how it disproves Corbyn's own statement "I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere" - this is pretty careless for BLP stuff and while not egregious, BLPs are the last place for soapboxing and I don't think it's good to keep repeating this as though it were an objective fact unless reliable sources have called the truthfulness of Corbyn's statement into question, based on this quote. Have reliable sources done that? Seraphim System (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no dispute that Corbyn said "I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere" in reference to his attendance of the memorial. There is also no dispute (there are enough references) that the widows said “We do not recall a visit of Mr Corbyn to the graves of our murdered fathers, sons and husbands They only went to the Olympic Games in order to participate in this festival of love, peace and brotherhood; but they all returned home in coffins. For Mr Corbyn to honour these terrorists, is the ultimate act of maliciousness, cruelty and stupidity" in response to Corbyn's statement. Including the victims response is not soap-boxing it is just what happened. Not including the response is whitewashing, plain and simple.Clivel 0 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is removing it for nefarious reasons like whitewashing, there are tons of quotes we choose not to add to articles. That's why this was removed as WP:COATRACK - quotes can introduce bias and are then balanced by more quotes. The end result is almost always detrimental to article quality and readability.Seraphim System (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
These are not some random quotes by just anyone, these are reactions by the victims - i.e the people most hurt by Corbyn memorialising members of Black September the terrorist group responsible for the Munich massacre. These are the people who are most personally affected. To call it WP:COATRACK is a complete stretch. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a selected source designed to make a point. We could insert lots of quotes here, including accusations of hypocrisy against the Israili Prime Minister and so on. Clivel 0 is also not complying with normal practice in reinstating controversial material bnefore there is a consensus on the talk page. The source of the quote is hardly neutral so its not clear if it is material or not. It may well bne a BLP violation as well given the wording -----Snowded TALK 00:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I object to User:Snowded's continued attempts to intimidate me into colluding with his attempts at whitewashing Corbyn, If it is a BLP violation take action against me, if not, and it is not, then simply put your poison pen down. I also object to Snowded making false accusations on my talk page.
As per my reply above, :These are not some random quotes by just anyone, these are reactions by the victims - i.e the people most hurt by Corbyn memorialising members of Black September the terrorist group responsible for the Munich massacre. These are the people who are most personally affected. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You had better read policy on personal attacks if you want to use phrases like 'poison pen' and 'whitewashing'. Selective quotations to attack a living person is a potential BLP violition and a pointing that out is reasonable. -----Snowded TALK 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Corbyn so shouldn't be included in his biography. RevertBob (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It's "to do" with Corbyn only insofar as those comments would not have been made without the original visit to the cemetery and the ensuing row instigated by the Daily Mail? But maybe they're less notable than the Netanyahu tweets, as at least he is himself notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
So, on balance, I don't think the long quote is justified here. Another. very similar discussion has also been going on at Talk:Wreathgate. I'd say there was even less justification here. But it's now just been re-added yet again, by an editor who has yet to comment here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I reduced the quote before adding it. And I don't see any serious argument in Talk:Wreathgate based on Wiki policy to exclude the reaction by the relatives of the Munich massacre. You didn't explain why the quote is not justified. Maybe we should ask for an impartial administrator to give his opinion.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a very good idea. Thanks. And perhaps you'd like to make a null edit to your last addition, so that you can add an explanatory edit summary? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
WE have to be extremely careful of Negative quotes about the subject of a BLP, especially facts of what happen are in dispute or are unclear, it also really does not fit with the NPOV encyclopedic style of writing of Wikipedia articles, ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
What happened at Munich was beyond an outrage, we can not imagine what the widows have and are going through.

However I don't think we should have accusations on BLP when it remains unclear if the subject of the BLP was guilty of anything apart from accepting invitation to join a delegation paying respects to those killed in a 1985 Israeli bombing of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) headquarters in Tunis, during an international conference in Tunis (At 2 places, the second in a small enclosed graveyard that also held more senior PLO members). We do not know whether Corbyn has been able to visit the memorials for the victims of Munich, whether that has been deliberate or whether has he ever been invited to Israel to visit their memorials. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to right wrongs. What happened in Munich was horrific, what has happened in Israeli bombings has been horrific, what happened in rocket attacks on Israeli settlements is horrific and so on. If we start to quote one reaction then we have to quote others. What is noteworthy is references to such where they have acehived prominance in reliable sources. But we don't select extensive quotes to make a point - that is true in general and especially true of BLP issues. יניב הורון (Yaniv) given this is disputed you should propose working here rather than editing the article direct - where you are getting very close to edit warring. -----Snowded TALK 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am passionate about balanced NPOV, the truth (hopefully objectively), a little bit obsessive and we are talking about a biography of a politician who many folks consider controversial, who most of the senior News media despise and in connection to extremely divided issue. I felt outnumbered. I was doomed. Hopefully I jumped out in time. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded False equivalence. Israel retaliating by bombing the terrorist savages was not horrific; it was completely justified. Would you call bombing Germany during World War II horrific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeanWarrior54 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please lets not make it personal. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject or what you might guess to be other editors views. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This cuts both ways - please don't refer to PLO personnel in 1985 in a POV manner. As for the comments by the widows, they have certainly been covered widely enough in RSes to merit a brief mention here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Brief mention is agreed, the BLP objection is to extended quotes -----Snowded TALK 11:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well done, everyone. We seem to have actually reached an agreed consensus and we didn't even mention you know who (although we weren't very far away). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Certainly a more neutral tone ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn was pictured standing with Maher Taher of the PLFP etc

Does anyone get much choice who stands next to them at a mememorial, espicially one in such a confined area.

The Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue bombing in November 2014 happened a month after the memorial in Tunis, so Corbyn could not have known of Tahers involvement. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:OR - we follow what sources say - in this case the BBC. The PFLP have been designated as a terrorist organization (including by the EU, of which the UK is still part) well before 2014 and the wreath laying.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well it may be WP:OR but it's pretty obvious to me that including that in the article would be quite biased and POINTy. Or are we suggesting that Corbyn actually helped to plan it, chatting with Taher at the gravesides, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Speculating on whatever Taher and Corbyn discussed or not would be OR. As would be speculation on whether Corbyn knew or did not know who Taher (a quite well known figure) was - though the reverted text did contain Corbyn saying he was not aware.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree about the positioning. I would imagine this event wasn't quite as well-choreographed as the annual Cenotaph memorial in London. There was hardly a fixed seating plan, was there? And they didn't all have little badges with names and affiliations, did they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
A multitude of RSes seem to think that Corbyn standing side by side with Taher was quite significant - [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. They all mention the Synagogue attack which occurred shortly thereafter, possibly not due to any implied causality but as a well known atrocity (hardly the first) committed by this group.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Newspapers love to make "news stories", don't they? My concern is that, at an event like that, people typically mill about, changing positions quite lot. There's a lot of "mingling"; there may be a lot of "jostling" if it's a small area. Just one static photo of the two men in proximity, tells us nothing about how long hey were next to each other, or if they even spoke. You can call my concerns "OR" of you like, but it doesn't really reduce them. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. Or maybe they had a long heart to heart conversation - speculation really is pointless and ORish - we simply follow the sources. I can tell you that photo ops in such a ceremony are rarely left to chance - they are usually very carefully engineered and often all sides involved will negotiate positioning well before the event (this is true for public figures, and often non-public figures (e.g. [17]), and often even extras (and what they wear) who appear in the background) - for public figures 95% of what matters from such an event is the photographs and videos - that's what appears in the media later. As to who/how negotiated and engineered the placement here - well - that would be OR unless we have sources reporting on it.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well thanks for your own bit of OR there. I remain wholly unconvinced. My guess is that Corbyn stood next to Maher, whether briefly or not, because he had no real choice. Surreptitiously linking him with a bombing attack that happened the following month, because of this encounter, is just plain wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a bombing - axes. The PFLP was responsible for many atrocities prior to the 2014 synagogue attack - and the leader of the PFLP is a well known figure.Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't dispute any of that. But how much does all that have to do with Corbyn? This was an international conference on the world stage, not some shady backstreet encounter? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hardly a well-attended conference on the world stage. Seems to have been a local/Palestinian events with few visitors. As for Corbyn - RSes make the connection clear - he stood next to and was photographed with a PFLP leader.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The "International Conference on Monitoring the Palestinian Political and Legal Situation in the Light of Israeli Aggression"? That's why we even had any photographers there? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Photographers are a dime a dozen - particularly in this digital age. Just how "international" do you think this was, beyond the Few British MPs and "international" in the title? I'll note that Google, filtered to results up to the end of 2017, has no substantial hits (around 10 true hits, most seem to be old news items referring to the new scandal in side/bottom news item links) - which is a pretty good indication this "international conference" was fairly unknown, in English at least.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this directly impacts on the appropriateness of linking Corbyn to a synagogue stabbing by means of a brief encounter with Maher Taher. My point was simply that this meeting took place in public, as part of an official conference. Very sorry if there were no US politicians there. Sorry if Goggle didn't like it either. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Brief is OR. We have no idea how long this encounter (or others during the conference) lasted - one would assume attendants at the conference conversed during their stay there. Is the problem the Synagogue hacking (which multiple top-notch RSes mention in regards to this)? If so we could merely state he was photographed with the PFLP (a designated terror organization in the EU and elsewhere) leader Maher Taher.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the biggest part of the problem. But it's just all too tenuous as far as I can see. If mainstream news sources wish to indulge in "SYNTH" that's up to them. It doesn't mean we just have join it, tagging along behind them, a few days later. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Corbyn not any Terrorist Organization. I guess you did not know BLP rules apply to talk pages too. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, it is bad faith editing to try to connect Corbyn to the 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack, when you know that the Israeli investigation concluded that it was, despite claims, a lone wolf operation. (b) and when you have been told that the Corbyn-Taher photo in any case preceded that event by a month. You replied above that to make that clear to the reader would be WP:OR, which means you are intent on maintaining a false impression given by indifferent reportage. Like the nonsense about the Munich widows, such trivia (what do those aggrieved ladies know about Corbyn or the event? nothing) has no place on a BLP article. Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As you know, lone wolves are inspired and at times directed. We follow sources - in this case several make the connection - including the BBC.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Not WP:OR. Jpost [[18]] wrote it. I didn't enter it because though it has sources, since PLFP is linked, the reader can look it up and for WP:BLP it should be left out.Kigelim (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not due. All politicians meet people whom third parties would regard as unacceptable. On the Donald Trump page, we have 'Trump has praised China's President Xi Jinping,[605] Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan etc.' All of these have vast records of gross violations of human rights, and are in power in states they represent engage in policies of unbridled killings. On your logic just because Duterte is someone who vocally backs mass murder, and is reliably documented for this, since the sources state that, we should then develop a section on that page for Trump's association with murderers like Duterte and el-Sisi. Corbyn is nowhere near that territory of contiguity with, or association with, known thugs and murdererNishidani (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Again: Does anyone get much choice who stands next to them at a public memorial, especially one in such a confined area. Just one static photo of the two men in proximity, tells us nothing about how long they were next to each other, or if they even spoke. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
There are morethan one picture and Corbyn responded to it which makes it ,IMO, notable. In fact, he mentions PFLP in his Morning Star article along Hamas. I think he should come forward and say what some have said already, I have no problem with this. These are political leaders now. But he doesn't. Kigelim (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The BBC has clearly shown in their report 'from Inside the Jeremy Corbyn wreath row cemetery in Tunisia', exactly how small the assigned area that all attendees had to stand during the ceremony in the area of the enclosed Palestinian section of the Hamman Chott Cemetery. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Corbyn admitted being present at wreath-laying ceremony for Munich terrorists. [19], that is why the families whose loved ones were slaughtered in Munich,asked for an apology.Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I saw the claim above that 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was a lone wolf attack, which is not supported by Israeli investigation [20]and is contradicted by reliable secondary sources which attribute that crime to Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorists and by PFLP itself.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Israel Hayom is a non-RS crapsheet. The official investigation discounted the claim of PFLP involvement. What 2 widows in Munich say about Corbyn at a funeral fails all normal and extraordinary criteria for inclusion. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Nishidani the widow part shouldn’t be included. The Daily mentioned them first so it became a thing but it’s only a comment. Maybe should be included in the article itself along with Bibi’s tweet. Kigelim (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_13&oldid=857504511"