Talk:Corbyn wreath-laying controversy

Dubious

This is a highly contentious current news item - it has no place in an encyclopedia until the dust has setteled and there are reliable third party sources -----Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. Indeed it's not even known as 'Wreathgate' in the United Kingdom. Garageland66 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Tend to agree. There is no source for this title. It's a handy invention. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Well - there are some marginal sources using this title. The event itself clearly passes notability thresholds for an event. As for title - that's a separate matter (and probably won't be resolved short term anyway).Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Which are they? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I did see what appears to be a WP:NEWSBLOG at the Spectator - [1] and this at City A.M. - but I did say marginal..... I do not endorse the present name. I am not sure however what would be a better name, though the event/scandal (whatever its final name may be) - definitely passes, by quite some margin, the notability threshold. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comforting to see that anon Spectator gos columnist "Steerpike" uses a hyphen there, as does Catherine Neilan, "head of politics and investigations at City A.M." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Must be a "UK thing" to hyphenate gates. However I will note "Wreathgate" (or "Wreath-gate") is certainly more succinct than say Jeremy Corbyn presence at wreath laying in honor of terrorists scandal - it might catch.Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the topic is notable enough for its own article, and while Wreathgate is not a great title, we don't currently have any alternative names. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Spectator is hardly neutral in British politics, the name itself is an attempot to create news not report it. At the moment we have no idea if this story is going to survive or in what form. A specialist article, especially one with a polemical name, is not appropriate at this time. I'flipped an AfD notice -----Snowded ^TALK 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Reeve in his book One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God" the terrorists who murdered the athletes at Munich were not even burried in Tunisa but where buried in Libya-- BOD -- 22:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So this all seems to hinge on the graves of Atef Bseiso, Salah Khalaf and two other PLO leaders, how close Corbyn was to those graves, and if there was a coincidental commemorative ceremony for those? Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the controversy yes, and if there was a wreath laying for said people that Corbyn himself partook in. Being that the Daily Mail is considered generally unreliable as per the result of the RfC I just linked you, its use in this article is highly questionable LibrePrincess (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the rationale for it being tolerated is that, because the story was picked up by plenty of other news sources as if it was all true facts, it should be left in as the "primary source" for readers to judge its veracity for themselves. Without it, all the secondary sources might be assumed to have more credibility that they might deserve? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Name

Regardless of the worth of the article the name is clearly a polemic unless it is taken up by say the BBC. Of the sources just added we have conservative party news sources (and the original by a right wing columnist) and one which doesn't even mention it. No mainstream media are using it. Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate politically motivated name calling-----Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. What is your suggested alternative? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I think the article is premature, but while that debate takes place as a AfD we need to rename it. The BBC uses "Tunisia Wreath row" which at least is neutral. Wreathgate implies something that will bring Corbyn down and is not neutral. -----Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What's a "Tunisia Wreath"? Is that like a normal wreath, but with added jasmine? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In this context I suspect with added wormwood .... -----Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Gates no longer bring people down... We recently had a Pizzagate conspiracy theory, we are long past Watergate, gate just gets tacked onto everything and does not imply much. That being said the BBC's "wreath row" seems more consistent with UK lingo and is in wider use - so I support that.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Jeremy Corbyn wreath-lying ceremony. But I thought better of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For vasrious reasons associated with being a long term Labour Party member who wants to stay in Europe I might want to supoport that one :-) Black hunour aside, "Wreath row" is OK by me, but I suspect adding Tunisia is more meaningful. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Question: Are any of the 7 citations referenced after the name Wreathgate acceptable as suitable sources for Wikipedia?

Maybe the Sydney Morning Herald but that is just picking up on another report. Using perjorative names is a standard political tactic and this one initiates with known opponents of Corbyn so we should avoide being a part of that sort of propoganda -----Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wreathgate is not perjorative. It might not be a good title, but perjorative it is not.Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

disagree but it doesn't matter too much. The name is not used in the balance of reliable sources so the easiest thing is to change it. -----Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Times of Israel now using the term Wreathgate as well as some in the Guardian: https://www.timesofisrael.com/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-see-a-conspiracy-against-him/ Super-Mac (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Snowded, not used in the balance of reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn pictured with terror chief at Tunisia wreath ceremony

From Times Article, Should probably be included I can no longetr edit due to constrains put on edits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jeremy-corbyn-pictured-with-pflp-terror-chief-maher-al-taher-at-2014-tunisia-wreath-laying-ceremony-t5rgh0jp5

Jeremy Corbyn shared a platform with a senior official from a terrorist group that murdered a British rabbi in a Synagogue attack a month later.

Mr Corbyn stood alongside Maher al-Taher, the leader-in-exile of the proscribed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at the wreath-laying ceremony in Tunisia in 2014. He and Mr Corbyn, who became Labour leader the following year, were invited to attend the event with the official Palestinian Authority delegation.

A month later Mr Taher’s group claimed responsibility for an axe attack at a Jerusalem synagogue in which four rabbis were killed during morning prayers.

Super-Mac (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to break it to you, but often politicians, when they are guests at international events may meet and have to talk to folks whose actions they disagree with. Corbyn while not a pacifist has never ever endorsed terrorism. The Queen of England has had to spend time with many problematic political leaders does mean she supports their actions. -- BOD -- 22:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly usual for the content to be added. PFLP is a designated terror group and Corbyn was pictured with its chief, laying a wreath at the grave of other terrorist group members. Corbyn even referenced the group in his Morning Star article so he knew they were there. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-98de-palestine-united-1 It adds more context into the nature of the event. There is no implication within anything wrote in here or elsewhere thet Corbyn supports their actions. There is no implication within anything I've edited on here that he supports their actions. Super-Mac (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think The Times just making mischief here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Mischief or not, it's relevant and deserves mentioning. Super-Mac (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We're not the lapdog of The Times. How many other papers have run this "story"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

BBC, Spectator, Mail, Haaretz, Yeshiva all mention PFLP content. Super-Mac (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So this is now The Times little extension of the Wreathgate scandal, yes? Someone takes a picture of the two men attending the same conference and suddenly they are "sharing a platform"? I think adding this to this article or to the "Wreath laying in Tunis" section in the main Jeremy Corbyn article is wholly WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Lots of politicians from around the world have met with PLO and other officials - its recongised by the UN for one thing. You are making mischief by imputing something from a picture which may or may not be true -----Snowded ^TALK 02:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Munich widows

The statement of the Munich widows is clearly relevant for a scandal involving wreath laying at the graves of those involved in Munich. This statement has been widely covered - beyond the initial coverage in Jewish News, it has been picked up by The Times, Independent, and others. Other outlets have included their own widow statements - e.g. BBC or Sky. We should certainly, as do RSes, afford space for the victims here and avoid giving undue weight to questionable figures.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to check out the discussion on the Corbyn page - which almost exactly replicates this one which illustrates the nonense of having it. We don't in wikipedia select quotes and if we do then we need to start getting balance and use a lot of the other quotes that are coming out around this. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an argument to be had on Corbyn's page on the scope of coverage of Wreathgate there. However, this specific article covers Wreathgate as a topic - and is not Corbyn specific (Corbyn is obviously a side to the affair, however there are other sides). If RSes deem fit to cover widely the Munich widows (including full length interviews as well as quotations of said interviews elsewhere) - it is certainly relevant here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Its an article about Corbyn (with a dubious name). As I said if we add that particular quote then we cover other quotes as well about the issue from Palastinian as well as western sources. Then we get a quote fest -----Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, this is an article about a tribute performed by Corbyn. Clearly there are victims involved as well - which in RSes are receiving quite some coverage in relation to this scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Bodney: Please explain how a direct reaction to this incident by the widows is "WP:COATRACK".--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't like it. Super-Mac (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The long quote isn't included in any of those articles and we shouldn't either. We can mention that the widows said they were “extremely disturbed”, but it's not usual practice to include lengthy negative opinion quotes about living persons. We include facts and sometimes attributed expert opinions. Even for something like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting we haven't included a lot of quotes from family members. I was a little upset when I added a reaction from a family member to an article about a mass shooting and it was reverted, but comparing it with other articles, it really doesn't fit with the encyclopedic style of writing of Wikipedia articles. I don't think anyone should personalize this as it's no different from any other article editors have strong feelings about.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think the long quote is unjustified here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Black September Mastermind claims Khalaf, who's grave was where Corbyn apparently laid the wreath, was his co-mastermind.

Source should be added detailing admissions of involvement in Black September and Munich from Khalaf's memoir and Daoud's memoir:

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,340700-2,00.html

"Then came the 1978 memoir of late Black September leader Abu Iyad(KHALAF), in which he explained how he handpicked the two commandos who led the attack within the Village: Issa, who served as lead negotiator and became known to millions of TV viewers as "the man in the white hat"; and Tony, a short but fiery fedayee, or "fighter for the faith," who was in charge of operations. "

"And another Black Septembrist, Abu Daoud, perhaps gulled by the false peace of the 1993 Oslo accords, published a memoir in which he described how he and Abu Iyad(KHALAF) masterminded the operation."

Khamba Tendal whole massive post on the Corbyn talk page is really usefull in general for BS related stuff and context on Munich in general:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#Allegation_about_Tunisia

Super-Mac (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this article about Corbyn laying a wreath or about the leadership of Black September? Unless we can show categorically that Corbyn knew about this, and that it affected his actions in Tunisia, it looks very much like "COATTRACK" material. Do you know Khamba Tendal by any chance? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've no idea who Super-Mac is. As I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party that is a not a username I would affine to. And I don't entirely care for your tone.Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps he's just a fan of Newcastle United? Did you not see my reply below? He seems to be quite a fan of yours. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, no idea. I'm not a Newcastle supporter either. I've lived within earshot of the Arsenal stadium (both at Highbury and at Ashburton Grove) for over thirty years. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

When did anyone claim you were a fan of Newcastle United? With or without any particular tone? My sincere sympathy for having to endure all that noise. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. I see that Super-Mac was a bit of a WP:SPA and only edited here over three days 15 - 17 August. It seems he's now disappeared again, having neglected to tell us anything about himself on his User page. I guess we'll never know if he did know you or not?

A small profile of whose graves Corbyn was at is incredibly important to provide context to the event. What's your allegation regarding me and Tendal? Super-Mac (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is "incredibly important". If those individuals are notable, a click on their internal link will allow readers to read all about them. Any background, to act as context, should be as brief as possible. I don't have any "allegations" regarding you and Tendal, sorry. I just asked you a question, since your respective approaches and edits are much the same. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Martinevans123 -----Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism Dispute over edits.

Bodney has just vandalised the article beyond relief without consulting the talk page. THe's using one source from a tongue in cheek BBC video which doesn't support the claims he's making. He has vandalised both this article and the section on Corbyn's page. If you look into the bakground of his edits he has also made several mistakes, one in particular regarding deletion of information relevent because he didn't know anything about Khalaf.

His edits are partisan and limiting to others and not what anyone should be doing on here, especially without consulting any other user or the TALK page.

Super-Mac (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If writing the truth is vandalism ... I am Sorry i thought Wikipedia should be a record of truth not unreliable Daily Mail false stories, and false accusations based on the mail's story. Oh I am a she:).-- BOD -- 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Which segment of the Mail story is false. Please highlight a single paragraph which is demonstrably untrue. Super-Mac (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to know where to start, it was without doubt highly misleading, watch the BBC video. Calling the BBC video that shows the very small area within the cemetery 'tongue in cheek' is perhaps not a clever argument.-- BOD -- 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"hard to know where to start" That's the battlecry of all those who don't want to answer an explicit question. Please cite a single false claim in the Mail piece. The BBC video has no sources and has no backing in any source whatsoever. Super-Mac (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You think that the BBC reporter in that video just made it all up? That it can't be trusted as it's not written down somewhere? Can you offer any countering evidence that one single statement of that report is not true? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Lets deconstruct what she's saying in the video. "There's a plaque here that's dedicated to those buried in this section" referring to the senior PLO figures including Khalaf." Then she says this is the area in which victims of the airstrike are buried "as well as members of the Palestinian Liberation organisation" seemingly speaking of the PLO leaders buried again and motioning her arms towards the area under the canopy and in the direction of the Tunisia PLO bombing plaque. What section of this counters the claims by the Mail or the admission by Corbyn he attendted the event for Black September member? Super-Mac (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What I see is OR based off of the BBC story which said Corbyn would've been expected to stand in a certain area. The OR being that this is significant in some way - which is not stressed by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Channel4's fact check - factcheck concludes that In 2014, Jeremy Corbyn was pictured holding a wreath in front of a plaque commemorating three Palestinians – including Salah Khalaf, who Israel says was linked to the 1972 Munich massacre., as well as seeing various Labour stmts as inconsistent.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes the BBC video also shows that is exactly the place all dignitaries stand for every ceremony within the restricted area of the small covered area inside the enclosed section of the cemetery. He would not have had much choice where he was standing during the service to commemorate the victims of the 1985 Israeli air strike or any other service. -- BOD -- 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Channel4's analysis it would seem likely he placed (or held prior to it being placed) a wreath for Khalaf who did not die in 1985. The issue at present would be beyond just standing there, but actually being involved in the wreath laying for non-1985 dead (the wreath for 1985 being placed at the 1985 monument which is some 3km distant per Channel4).Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry the BBC NEWS report on camera clearly shows the monument for the Palestinian victims of the 1985 air strike is inside the cemetery for the "Martyrs of Palestine" inside the Hamman Chott Cemetery, very close to khalaf's grave.-- BOD -- 19:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Channel 4 Fact Check also states "New details from Channel 4 News: Corbyn did attend a separate monument that commemorates the 1985 attack... The town Mr Corbyn was visiting, a southern suburb of the capital Tunis called Hammam Chott, actually contains two memorial sites for the victims of the 1985 Israeli attack on Tunisia: a large monument on the seafront, and a memorial plaque in the Palestinian Cemetery three miles away."-- BOD -- 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is also a plaque in the cemetery. However, as Channel4 makes clear - the ceremony for the 1985 dead was held (and was more widely attended - by Corbyn as well as other visitors (who chose not to go to the cemetery)) in front of the large monument on the seafront, where wreaths were laid.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Channel 4 News: "Corbyn did attend a separate monument that commemorates the 1985 attack"... -- BOD -- 19:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you link the BBC video here? Could you explain why you think it's "tongue in cheek"? I'm not sure Bodney's edits should be characterised as "vandalism". She just has a different point of view to you, about what should be there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

For the moment I have kept both the BBC and the Chanel 4 material in there but moderating the language in both cases. It will be some time before there is any really definative data so only allowing evidence deemed to support either Corbyn was wholly innocent or wholly guilty would not be correct. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I do worry that this type of article is a way to get round the neutrality in BLP articles-- BOD -- 20:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I've said on the deletion page it just gives us two articles with near identical ariations of the same disputes -----Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Rather than just localising the "discussions" in one place, the article here seems to be just duplicating the same edit warring and name-calling that's happening at the wreath section in the main article. In a way, I wish one or the other could be deleted, or at least frozen in some way, until a stable consensus could be reached. But then it's not policy at Wikipedia to ever delete articles just because they are causing too much time-wasting edit warring. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

One solution the involved editors could agree is to move the bulk of the material here and just have a two/three sentence summary on the Corbyn article. Comments? -----Snowded ^TALK 21:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If things carry on the way they have, no objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Concern: But how to maintain NPOV, I still worry that articles like this are a way to get round the BLP rules. Once again the Corbyn section is being rewritten to remove any balance. -- BOD -- 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think merging the sections and linking to this article would be a good idea. It doesn't make much sense to have the same edit warring and disputes going on in two articles per Martinevans123 and Snowded. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It has been a bit confusing at times. Maybe a experienced neutral ed could do it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Album from Facebook

Can someone insert the link? https://m.facebook.com/pg/PalestinianEmbassy/photos/?tab=album&album_id=661653160598604 Kigelim (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:FACEBOOK? Thanks. 86.181.19.75 (talk) 08:31, 18 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 memorial, especially 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. It was written in a pointed non NPOV way. I removed the exact same passage from the Corbyn page. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Photo-ops of public figures (at least two of which were involved here) are usually carefully engineered and pre-negotiated. Speculating on what Corbyn knew or did not know in 2014 is OR - and regardless the PFLP has been involved in a great many atrocities over the years and is a designated terrorist organizations by many countries/super-national groupings - including the EU (which the UK was part of in 2014) - Corbyn standing next to the leader of a designated terrorist organization is quite significant. What is relevant to use is sourcing - and in this case a multitude of RSes seem to think that Corbyn standing side by side with Taher was quite significant - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. 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) 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion looks a bit familiar. I won't be commenting all over again here as I have given my opinion at the main article talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry wanted to explain my edit here, did not intend to have duplicate discussions, no need to repeat ourselves here, especially at the same time. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Is it appropriate to use single sources, such as The Times of Israel and The Jewish Chronicle to report criticisms of Corbyn here? Or should such reports be based on more sources than just these, or perhaps only on totally different, less partisan, sources? Surely both of those publications have a certain agenda to push? Their reports may be perfectly accurate, but are they reflected in the wider international press? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An agenda? Perhaps we should ban British sources for pushing an agenda? Ban all reporters know to be favorable to Corbyn? The Jewish Chronicle harks back to 1841, does not have an agenda beyond reporting what is of interest to the Jewish community, and is highly reputable. The Times of Israel is a newer outfit, but has a top notch team covering Israel, the UK, and the US - and is knpwn to be accurate. Wikipedia does not ban sources based on editor IDONTLIKE of an alleged "Jewish partisan agenda". ROI is aj international source - one that show a different voice than the repitition of British views.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to this, the wikipedia page for The Jewish Chronicle shows a number of IPSO complaints about the paper being upheld as well as them being successfully sued for libel on more than one occasion in the last 5 years. Are we still considering them a reliable source? 80.47.157.215 (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Who suggested "a ban" on anything? You think all UK publications are in some way pro-Corbyn? I'm really not sure what 1841 has to do with anything here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And what agenda (differing from other outlets, you are not suggesting to ban - which is what you are suggesting above), pray tell, does the JC have?Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing it might have the interests of Jewish people pretty high on any agenda that you're suggesting it doesn't really have. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So we are in the business of banning sources with a "Jewish agenda"?Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

We are about providing balance - you seem to be on a (sic) crusade on this matter. I've asked for some BLP experts to look at the quote fest and will tag your latest additions -----Snowded ^TALK 22:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. And balance means reflecting all relevant POVs per the balance of coverage. As this is an issue that affects the prospects of Jews in the UK as well as relations with Israel - clearly there is quite some coverage in Jewish and Israeli press which should be reflected as well jn our article.Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack it was a legitimate comment, you are being very one sided and giving sources whose authority in this context should be questioned - the one you just inserted is from a controversial figure.-----Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't think that perhaps "a Corbyn led government would be an existential threat to the Jewish community" should be in quotes at all? And now he's "sharing a platform with Hezbollah"? Is that a fact? It seems to be being reported as one. I agree with User:Snowded, I think your latest addition is wholly unbalanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC):

Both stmts are clearly attributed to Goldstein - at the beginning of each sentence. They are not in wikivoice. Paraphrased summaries are usually preferred to long direct quotes - but this is all very clearly attribited (as it ahould be) - if you think a direct quote is better - fine.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of content is disputed - you should self revert on that whole paragraph until we have agreement and/ort advice on BLP issues. -----Snowded ^TALK 00:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

More generally in this article, which is about a controversial BLP topic, and which is likely to attract controversial contributions, I'd suggest that nothing should be added that relies on a single source, whether or not that source is seen as partisan or as having "an agenda". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a BLP article - it is an article on a political event (that yes, also involves several BLPs - not just Corbyn. The PFLP leader is a BLP, Lord Sheikh is a BLP, the widows of the Munich massacre are BLPs, as are the leaders of the Jewish community in Britian). The Jewish Leadership Council was covered elsewhere as well - e.g. The Times, and Independent - which shows that inclusion of their comments is DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this article has very clear BLP considerations. But regardless of that, I don't think inclusion of Jonathan Goldstein's comments is DUE unless other sources are added. I see that The Independent article just says: "The chair of Jewish Leadership Council, Jonathan Goldstein, told The Jewish Chronicle: “This man is not fit to be a member of parliament.” Not sure what The Times article says as it's not a free source. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So, are Goldstein's comments solely about the wreath row or about Corbyn's "anti-semitism" in general? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

He is quoted in the context of the Tunis affair, and most of long interview is in response to the Tunis affair with which the interview leads off with.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Having it in the "Reactions" subsection at the main article, instead of in the "Wreath-laying row" sub-section, seemed a bit inconsistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems from the article in The Times of Israel article that Goldstein is reacting to "the "refusal to apologise" to the widows: "...Goldstein lambasted Corbyn’s refusal to apologize to the families who were bereaved by the Munich attack." So that addition to the "Reactions" subsection at the main article seems misplaced. It has all stemmed from this incident in Tunis - so that's where it should go in the main article? This was the defining moment; the refusal to apologise is the reason for "British Jewry's collective fear", according to Goldstein. The claim about the "existential threat" to the Jewish community is really quite alarming, however Just what is Goldstein implying here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Implying? He's quite clear - in his view a Corbyn led government would be an existential threat (physical safety, ability to remain in the UK) to the Jewish community in the UK. He's not alone in that view - it is rather widely shared in the Jewish community - see Jewish newspapers claim Corbyn poses 'existential threat', Guardian, Anti-Semitism is so bad in Britain that some Jews are planning to leave, CNN. Opinions here are wider than just the Jewish community (where this is the overwhelming majority), even the general population in the UK when polled - "33% think Corbyn is antisemitic".[9] Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. under Corbyn a Labour government would expel all the Jews or kill them, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps per those who say such a government would be an "existential threat" - though I would assume (based on my reading of the sources) that they primarily mean lower scale violence/harassment (which may indeed be deadly, but not all encompassing) and Jews leaving as a result. Such violence/harassment may be organized, semi-organized, from elements hosted by the hypothetical British government (whom are declared "friends" of the hypothetical premier), or spontaneous. In any event - we follow what the sources say.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. All a bit hypothetical this, isn't it. The sources don't say any of this. But that comment by Goldstein sounds incredibly inflammatory to me. I think perhaps we should restrict ourselves to discussing matters that are directly connected to the wreath row, not expending effort in building a case to demonstrate Corbyn's antisemitism in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

inflammatory? This is a mainstream position in the Jewish community in the UK (and is held by others) - Goldstein holding a leadership post therein and said position being said by others in a previous context (e.g. Jewish newspapers claim Corbyn poses 'existential threat', Guardian). As evident in a simple google-news search for: Corbyn+"existential threat"+Tunisia (filtered to last month) - Corbyn being widely perceived by the Jewish community as an "existential threat" is covered widely in the context of the Tunisia kerfuffle - even if we were to source this to someone other than Goldstein, it would still be obviously DUE - as RSes state this. We certainly shouldn't minimize the threat of antisemitism when it is highlighted by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, inflammatory. "Existential threat" doesn't sound like "lower scale violence/harassment" to me. It sounds like death camps and extermination. But I didn't realise that Goldstein was just repeating there what three Jewish newspapers had already said a month ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"lower scale violence/harassment" leading to an entire community fleeing (per CNN - Anti-Semitism is so bad in Britain that some Jews are planning to leave, CNN - something that has perhaps begun) - is quite a serious matter - however what they meant is OR without solid sourcing. Regardless - a simple google-news search for: Corbyn+"existential threat"+Tunisia (filtered to last month) shows that RSes deem this significant in the Wreathgate context.Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's inflammatory rhetoric that has no basis in reality. But maybe that's just my unconscious pitiful antisemitic bias. Either way, this "Jezza-hates-Jews" narrative was being played out weeks in advance of the DM "scoop." It's getting hard to see what's been caused by the general Corbyn story and what's been caused by Wreathgate. I think it's pretty impossible to prove any causal relationships at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal opinions don't amount to much - sources do. CNN, BBC, Times of Israel all seem to be covering Jews leaving the UK due to this.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So the BBC have "Jewish couple, Mark Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal". That's a running total of two for the BBC, then. My point is that this is germane to Corbyn's perceived antisemitism as a whole, not just because he refused to apologise to the two Munich widows over the wreath-laying i.e. your news media analysis belongs at the main JC article, not here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Post-AfD Naming Discussion

The name discussion above didn't come to any conclusion, but the AfD had an strong (though not overwhelming) consensus that a name change was critical. Mass pinging everyone who mooted a name change/specific name remain in the AfD: @Icewhiz, Snowded, This is Paul, Neiltonks, Exemplo347, Smeat75, Garageland66, Bangalamania, Simonm223, and E.M.Gregory:

A few options, including the current one, I have seen in reliable media (numbered for referral ease - feel free to add your own):

1. (Jeremy) Corbyn wreath row
2. (Jeremy) Corbyn wreath-laying controversy
3. Wreath-laying controversy
4. Palestine wreath row
5. Wreathgate
6. ...
7. Corbyn Tunisia wreath laying controversy
8. Corbyn Palestinian wreath laying controversy

How about 6. Another tawdry Daily Mail smear campaign? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not 6.... If it were only the DM, we wouldn't have an article at all - :-). "Palestine wreath row" is also less specific than Tunisia wreath row. I think I would go with Corbyn wreath row - as short + making it clear to be related to Corbyn (as opposed to some other "wreath row" in Tunisia (or Palestine)).Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, if it were only the DM, haha. That's a bit like saying "if it were only that San Benito campfire that got out of control." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How about Jeremy Corbyn wreath laying controversy or Tunisia wreath laying controversy? Does what it says on the tin in both cases. This is Paul (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• We need both Corbyn and Tunisia in the title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian is an important element too ................more ....(humour:if for some reason the naughty 6th option, i cant think why, is rejected) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn Tunisia wreath laying controversy? Or what about incorporating this into a wider article discussing Corbyn's support for Palestine? This is Paul (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that Tunisia is important here, but the actual phrasing has split in so many routes, most not including Tunisia, that a shorter title of Corbyn wreath laying controversy is a more accepted common title. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think we need Tunisia in the title. Corbyn Tunisia wreath laying controversy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For geography Tunisia maybe relevant, but I believe the whole controversy was centrally about wreath laying for Palestinians, good or bad ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously, whatever we opt for, we'll set up a number of redirects Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The conrtoversy was because they were terrorists. Not because they were terrorists of a specific ethnicity.22:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't the so-called "controversy" not "because they were terrorists" but "because they happened to be buried (well, perhaps some of them) in the same cemetery as some other dead people of the same ethnicity"?Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The is indeed no doubt a accusation of wreath laying for PLO terrorists, but the is also alternative-side that the wreath laying was for Palestinians (including families) who died under an unlawful terrorist act. Why not neutrally mention the people who were the subjects of the controversy So i would go for Corbyn Palestinian wreath laying controversy. Where it happened is not as important. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that This is Paul suggestion above incorporating this into a wider article discussing Corbyn's support for Palestine? is an excellent idea ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

While I can understand the thought process I would note both that this is something that wouldn't fall neatly into it, I also think that it wouldn't be a illegitimate contentfork (even if it did fall neatly). Making that merge decision just because we're failing to neatly come to a decision wouldn't be a great (final, I don't doubt) justification Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that this was just KEPT at AfD, we should give it six months or a year before talking about a merge, since the debate about stand-alone notability does center on IMPACT and ONGOING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

8. Corbyn Palestinian wreath laying controversy ? :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

After variant 2 (sans Jezza), that would probably be my preferred option, but I still think it is a little more complicated than preferable (and necessary). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Alas, we still have the intensely difficult issue of whether or not to hyphenate "wreath-laying" (which is almost certain to draw the MOS Nazis out of the woodwork here). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh sweet jesus, that's almost enough to make me adopt proposal 1 on it's own Nosebagbear (talk)

2 looks the best option to me as it sums up the topic without unnecessary detail. I don't think we need Tunisia in there as the controversy would have been the same if the cemetery had been in Algeria, Libya, Egypt etc. I don't like the "Palestinian wreath" options as I don't think wreaths have a nationality. Tigerboy1966  07:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

2 is the most neutral, descriptive etc. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

2 seems most sensible. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• 2 has a plurality, but is significantly far from a majority. Is it worth asking someone to judge consensus, or ask for additional comment? The fact that everyone is unified against Wreathgate means that a "no-consent - stick with what we have" answer seems bonkers. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• 8 Though I seem to be the lone voice voting for it. I do think the fact that they are Palestinian memorials and graves is as significant an aspect as Corbyn's involvement, its the two together that created the controversy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

conclude?

We've got 4 for 2 and one for 8 and its been some time. Any objection to going with 2? -----Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Does 2 include his first name or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the implication is not -----Snowded ^TALK 09:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Mostly I will go with the majority. (I even quite like wreathgate, it does remind the reader of the daily mail origins.) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought 8 was reasonable, but happy to go with 2 also. Ah yes, a quality daily. If only the story had been broken by a *quality broadsheet*. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd been assuming no first name Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• 'Comment: add me as support for 2. Corbyn wreath-laying controversy. My second choice is 3. Wreath-laying controversy. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've actioned the change and also made a linked change on the Corbyn article -----Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Misleading lede?

Anyone unfamiliar with British politics might assume that Corbyn was the Labour leader at the time of the wreath-laying. Do you think we should re-phrase? Tigerboy1966  05:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point -----Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It is the dispute that's notable

The article stated twice as a matter of fact that the cemetery wreath-laying commemorated events in 1985. This is disputed, and since it is the dispute that makes the event notable, that needs to stated in the lead.

I've now removed the second occurrence of this and replaced the selective summary of the BBC News report with a verbatim transcript of what the reporter actually said.

Finally, the article does not mention that Corbyn had taken part in a ceremony at a memorial to the 1985 airstrike victims elsewhere in the city as part of the same excursion that day. This is important evidence for the argument that the ceremony at the cemetery was for some other purpose. 82.21.168.53 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that my edit has been instantly reverted by Bodney, who needs to explain why a summary (which happens to omit an important detail) is preferable to a direct quote. 82.21.168.53 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It doens't add anything - its what the BBC reported that matters. Your final argument is your making an argument not using a reliable third party source. There are often more than one ceremonies around significant events. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you say so. 82.21.168.53 (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert

Re this revert Providing a full-paragraph for a rather minor 1:30 video BBC segment (or rather 10 seconds within) - which the BBC apparently didn't even bother to turn into a text item - is rather excessive. Furthermore, Rana Jawad of BBC News herself says - "what we understand is that this section is the area where dignitaries and diplomats stand on an annual basis to remember those who were killed in the Israeli airstrike in 1985 and also other senior members of the PLO". So Jawad herself doesn't state this as fact, but says she understands this to be the case - she's attributing this as well (to an unnamed anonymous sources), as she didn't verify it. Furthermore, she states that the ceremony inside the cemetery is also other senior members of the PLO - so not just 1985.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of minor points and circumstantial evidence around this article - the BBC report is relevant in that context unless we do a major clearout -----Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how much credence you afford to "BBC understanding". The phrase is often used as a synonym for "we know". I would doubt that a local civil servant or the administrator of the Hamman Chott Cemetery could be regarded as a notable source anyway? I don't have any problem with having that as a separate paragraph. To me it just looks clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly relevant - as a single sentence within the context it is describing - not a full blown paragraph describing this 1:30 video segment - falsely describing as it is - when the BBC itself is not using its own voice ("we understand" is a qualifier - to avoid using their own voice - this is common jargon in media when such an "understanding" is based on anonymous sources, hearsay, and/or material by others - but hasn't been vetted thoroughly by the reporting organization (beyond vetting that someone else indeed said it)) , and the BBC itself states the annual ceremony at the cemetary includes other PLO figures as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you are being overly sceptical about what is a perfectly reasonable explanation of what very probably is typically the case at these ceremonies. I mean, the real value of the BBC piece is that it shoes where the various relevant graves are located and how small the covered area is. It just provides more detail behind the static Daily Mail photos? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And based if anything on better evidence that the original Daily Mail article -----Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not skeptical at all - I think it actually is a good source for explaining why Corbyn was standing there (as well as good filmed source for explaining the layout of the cemetery) - however the BBC doesn't limit context to 1985 (as opposed to Black September leadership) - it clearly says both. Furthermore, the BBC explains why Corbyn would be standing there - not why he would be holding a wreath (which was placed on the leadership graves per other (non-DM) sources).Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And your proposed alternative is? Adding the reporter's name is not appropriate but some other qualification might work -----Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just don't see such a huge significance in the use of the phrase "we understand^ as you obviously do. And we can't really make much of what BBC didn't explain, can we? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nor should we say things they didn't say (e.g. - she dosn't say Corbyn even once). Stating a reporter's name is actually quite common on-wiki, I don't see the rationale to objecting to it but nor do I think it is necessary to state it. I would trim this to a sentence, not a paragraph, but if it remains a paragraph - According to the understanding of a BBC News reporter, dignitaries typically stand on a annual basis to remember those who were killed in the Israel airstrike in 1985 and for senior members of the Palestine Liberation Organization in a covered area of the enclosed Palestinian section next to the graves of senior PLO members, notably Bseiso and Khalaf..Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

um a little while ago I tried to reword a compromise. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

um Rana Jawa says "what we understand is... " not "what I understand is..."? But again, I think you are over-qualifying to make a point. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. can Corbyn actually read Arabic? would that ceremony have been conducted in English, or in Arabic? had he ever been to that cemetery before and so knew who was buried where?

The royal we - as in BBC. :-). As for what Corbyn understood or not - it is actually par the course for politicians to vet and coordinate these matters ahead of time (down to seating arrangements, whom one would be standing next to, where one would be standing, what one would be doing, etc.) - to avoid possible embarrassment in the future (or present) - however I haven't seen coverage on how Corbyn's team at the time coordinated this.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MPs from minority factions with no hope of power generally don't have staff to manage these things - remember when this happened -----Snowded ^TALK 10:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we have no evidence about this at all. To my mind I'm guessing Corbyn really had no idea whose grave was whose, nor what was being said. But that's not something one would expect a politician of any persuasion to admit four years later. I believe he genuinely thought himself as being "on the side of peace and dialogue". Sorry to throw in this bit of WP:FORUM at this stage. I just feel sorry for the guy over this. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you 'feel sorry' for him in this matter, you have an issue of personal attachment and you should probably disqualify yourself from editing any article related to him. In his 23 September BBC interview with Andrew Marr, Corbyn claimed, 'At that time I was not even sure who was in the cemetery beyond those that had been killed in the [1985 Israeli] raid.' He says this at about 14.14 in the video.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06lycc1

Marr then points out that, in his 2014 Morning Star article, immediately after the event, Corbyn mentioned a second ceremony for 'others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1992.' Corbyn answers, 'Yes. That was later.' He is being deceptive. The ceremony at the Palestinian cemetery, where Corbyn laid a wreath on the Black September leader's grave, was indeed held after the one at the air-raid memorial several miles away (where Corbyn stood at the back not doing anything and apparently indifferent), but that is not the point. The point is that, in the Morning Star in 2014, he made quite clear that the second ceremony was nothing to do with the 1985 air raid, and was instead a tribute to PLO figures killed in different circumstances, however vaguely he understood those circumstances; but in recent interviews, including that one with Marr, he has pretended that he didn't know the difference, despite his previous, written, on-the-record statement that he knew the difference perfectly well. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel sorry for Jeremy. Perhaps you can give us a RS source that says that he was "being deceptive", otherwise folks might worry that you are unwittingly engaging in personal WP:SYNTH. If you think he was being deliberately deceptive in this matter, you may have an issue of personal attachment and you should probably disqualify yourself from editing any article related to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle as single source

Given that the Jewish Chronicle has had numerous complaints and libel actions upheld against it since 2015 should it still be used as a source on this article? 80.47.157.215 (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Any update on this? We still treating the Jewish Chronicle as a reliable source huh? 92.28.73.211 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics." Therefore it is not a reliable source for this article 88.108.117.173 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't correspond to the quote.--1.242.135.100 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My conclusion does correspond to this quote. This is post 2010 and refers to the British Left. Therefore there is a rough consensus the source is biased in these topics and therefore it should not be used as a single source for a claim in this article 88.108.117.173 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"THERE IS NO CONSENSUS on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians..."Istebrak (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics." 80.47.139.54 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please could you clearly and unequivocally state your position so we can make progress in this discussion. My position is:

If there is a rough consensus that a source is unreliable then it should not be used as the sole source for a claim, even if there is no "official consensus" regarding it's reliability.

Thanks 80.47.139.54 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)