Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Corbyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Today programme 13th May 2017

Eddie Mair (BBC Radio 4) has just reported a quote from Jeremy Corbyn that the Falklands War was a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business. Probably significant enough to go into the article (perhaps under National/Constitutional issues?). 82.9.164.31 (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears to originate in a 1982 council chamber speech while Corbyn was a Haringey councillor, but none of the sources which come up are good enough to cite. Philip Cross (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Was quoted saying the same thing in the Scottish Mail on Sunday, though the ultimate source appears to be the Hornsey Journal. https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20150830/281578059421110 . EDIT: I see the Express, Standard, and Daily Star all also covered this. As for whether this should be included in the article, I would say there's an argument, if it can be sourced properly, for including this in the section on his life before becoming an MP. I also think that, if decent sources can be found, his views on the Falkland islands should also be covered on this page - presently they are missing. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Found a similar quote in Rosa Prince's book and added into the foreign policy section, as well as his subsequently-expressed views on power-sharing over the Islands. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Expenses

The section on Corbyn's expenses seems UNDUE: No source says that his expenses are consistently in the lower half of MPs, we only have a single secondary source saying he was 79th lowest in one year and primary sources ranking him in the lower half for two years. In any case, Corbyn lives near to Westminster and cycles to Parliament, so it is not surprising that his expenses are lower than someone who has to pay for a train to London and then for accommodation. The quote from him also seems fairly unnotable. I will remove the paragraph unless anyone objects? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You might have waited more than one day for a response before unilaterally removing a whole paragraph, sourced, despite your edit summary, to multiple national media outlets. I tend to agree that most MP pages have too much about expenses (it almost seems to have become boilerplate text to include something from the Telegraph expenses story about all of them for example) but this was for a time quite a common theme in reports about Corbyn, as part of his portrayal as parsimonious etc. N-HH talk/edits 14:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry my edit summary was misleading I agree, I explained more fully here that the claim Corbyn "consistently had expenses in the lower half of MPs" was not backed up by the sources, and the national sources do not say anything about what his expenses were each year. The things the national newspapers do cover - what Corbyn thinks that his expenses approximately are each quarter, or that he thinks he is parsimonious, or that he gets a London Area Living Payment, are hardly notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Polytechnic

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Corbyn left after less than a year, he did not even get close to earning a degree. (FarnuBak (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

Do you have a reliable source which says that? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it has been a frequent topic of discussion in newspapers like "The Guardian". This source says he left after only a year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11957216/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-too-thick-to-be-Prime-Minister.html (FarnuBak (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
Plus the previous wording, "leaving without a degree" could be read as suggesting he did his full stint, took his exams and failed them. I think, if it's correct, it's better to be clear that he simply left soon after starting, which a lot of students do of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this, I have moved the ref out of the lead into the main body. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"House of Commons dress code" section

Is the "House of Commons dress code" section really notable? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it received a notable amount of media coverage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Really? The only other decent source I can find is this one. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/aug/19/jeremy-corbyn-style-jumper-newsnight Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Look at the timeframe. In the 1980's non-Internet sources are what must be considered. In my opinion this almost certainly warrants a mention in the article, but not necessarily a section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the section header while we wait for another opinion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Why his support of terrorism is hidden?

He supports Hamas And Hezbolla calling the terrorists "friends". Both are recognized as terrorist organizations in the US and the EU. Why it is hidden? it should be added to the opening of the article, not less. (Just imagine Bush calling kkk members his friends... only when it comes to Israel people suddenly "understand" it.) I'm expecting an actual change and not double standard again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Because of "Balancing aspects", which is policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Wikipedia articles are not supposed to expose information neglected by mainstream media. Incidentally, mainstream writers don't provide that interpretation. TFD (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dropped out in lead

Umm...someone just removed 'dropped out' bit, because they said that it was not important enough for a lead. Which is fair. I think maybe simply just remove the whole relatively unimportant Poly bit from the lead. It could go in the early career section.-- BOD -- 15:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that is probably the best idea, as we normally assume that attendance if followed by graduation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, I think Corbyn leaving without a degree is important here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Then we should restore the bit about him being a dropout. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will restore the long-standing version while we wait for more opinions. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC

We don't usually mention dropping out of college/university in a lead, but should keep this here if it's important to who he is. This is Paul (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

'Voluntarily left after first year' is both more accurate and gives more detail, and shorter.-- BOD -- 23:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So what do you think the full sentence should be? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally I do not think the fact that he went to North London and decided to leave after one year, 45 years ago, is significant enough for a lead. -- BOD -- 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It's reasonable for inclusion in a later section but not for the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree too. In fact, I think this entire sentence should be deleted from the lead: 'Born in Chippenham, Wiltshire, Corbyn attended Adams' Grammar School and later North London Polytechnic, leaving without a degree after one year.' All this appears in the 'Early life' section, and the mention there of how he came to leave NLP is more explanatory, avoiding the suggestion that he left because of lack of academic ability. Dubmill (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Alma mater in infobox

Corbyn left the polytechnic after less than a year without receiving any qualification.

However, the "info box" gives the false impression to the reader that he graduated from the polytechnic. "Alma mater" should be removed from the summary box. 79.76.116.209 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Alma mater, the phrase describes somewhere the person studied at, rather than necessarily graduated from. However, I have added a clarifying note. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia replaced the note with (dropout) next to the uni, but this was reverted by Nomoskedasticity saying "Oh let's not get silly about it...". I am happy to have (dropout) next to the uni unless there is a consensus against it, what do others think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is not 'Dropped Out', better. And better still, 'Voluntarily left after first year'.-- BOD -- 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
"Dropout" as an epithet sounds pejorative to me. I wouldn't mind "Left after 1 year" in the box (rather than in a note), but "dropout" sounds wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
That was my reading too.-- BOD -- 21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if you disagree with the term "dropout" the false impression stated by the IP is still present if we use a simple numbered reference, as it hides the information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: are you happy with this to be changed to (left after a year) ? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as my concern was about the information being hidden in a reference. I didn't realise that dropout sounded pejorative, but rather thought it was a concise way to say that he did not complete the course. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The terms "dropped out" or "voluntarily withdrew" sound more appropriate than "dropout". Please add either phrase next to the polytechnic's name in the summary box, as I'm not permitted to make any alterations due to not being registered .79.76.116.209 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@JLo-Watson and SaucyJimmy: Please discuss here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
'Dropped out' is the comment used in other profiles regarding Alma Mater, including that of Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer User:JLo-Watson (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I think "dropped out" is the most appropriate term here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason? One that responds to the point that there's a pejorative connotation? Why prefer it over "left after one year"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly it's the standard term, secondly "left after a year" implies (to me anyway) there was a reason for him leaving other than his own choice. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"Left after one year" is neutral and informative. "Dropped out" is certainly non-neutral and pejorative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
"Dropped out" is not certainly non-neutral and pejorative. In fact the other choice could be interpreted as that, as it could suggest that he was not smart or stable enough to understand and handle the workload, or that he left due to circumstances than were not dependent on his own actions such as it closing down. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If it has to be explained, it does not belong in the info-box. Typically for people who did not attend university or graduate, we would leave the field blank. TFD (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Trim of leadership crisis section

I'm going to try and trim down the "Summer 2016 leadership crisis" section, it is covered already in Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and is too detailed with content that doesn't relate directly to Corbyn. This article is getting quite long, and even more space will be needed for the election results and their aftermath. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The European Union section, in the Foreign affairs section is mostly about the EU Referendum, seems odd it's separate.-- BOD -- 11:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Where do you suggest it goes? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The European Union section is 2/3's about Corbyn and the EU Referendum. While in the EU Referendum section itself, the is no mention of his approach/policies, but concentrates solely on criticisms of his handling of the referendum. I believe that is logical for the European Union bit showing his actual approach/policy to the EU Referendum should be before those complaints about his EU Referendum approach/handling etc, atm coming much later in the article this information is lost.-- BOD -- 17:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Page layout too presidential and perhaps a little un-British?

Is the layout of the page perhaps just a little too presidential, especially when compared with David Cameron's page on [the] 10[th] May 2010 [1]...bearing in mind that Mr Corbyn is not Prime Minister, just yet, or he may in fact not going to be Prime Minister...and bear in mind that here in the United Kingdom, we do NOT actually have a presidential system (yet) or a directly-elected head of Government (yet)? -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Image Change

The new photo is technically higher quality than the previous photo (which was taken at some distance), but I prefer the previous photo for the infobox as it is more formal and he doesn't have his mouth open. (Or the less washed out original to the previous photo). Views? Rwendland (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Just for now I've gone back to a less sharpened variant of the previous photo, which also looks a bit less shiny. But let the discussion continue. Shame we still do not have a really good Corbyn photo. Rwendland (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Got creative and sourced a better image from a CC BY 2.0 Global Justice Now promotional: File:Corbyn-GJN-Crop.jpg Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Could we have a vote on it. The guidance is MOS:LEADIMAGE and WP:MUG, and in summary is "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", "should be of least shock value" and "should not ... present a person in a false or disparaging light". The current contenders seem to be:

  • 1
    1
  • 2
    2
  • 3 (further sharpened)
    3 (further sharpened)
  • 4
    4
  • 6
    6
  • 7
    7

Update: #5 has been deleted for non CC BY-SA license, and a new contender #7 has arrived (after first 2 votes below made). Rwendland (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • #2: I prefer #2 (#3 would do), and am against #4 (mouth open) and #5 (too heavily cropped, and dark) - and also not of a formal style suited for BLP infobox. Rwendland (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • #7 - changed after this photo became available. While still mouth open, not too bad; and photo sharper and taken at reasonable ISO setting so sharp despite much fewer pixels. #2/#3 second choice now. Rwendland (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • #5: This is an actual publicity shot of Corbyn and thus does not have the awkwardness of #2 and #3 by capturing him at a distance in an unflattering pose. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The change of image - presumably prompted by image #2 being used as the Corbyn photo in other election coverage (with similar shots of other leaders) is an improvement. #7 seems to have supplanted it on this and the election pages (really not sure why since it seems to have traded marginally better contrast for a weirder expression). Frankly all of them are fine: Corbyn seldom fails to look slightly awkward when photographed and it's his own choice not to release carefully-posed publicity shots under a permissive licence. Dtellett (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • #4 Image is of higher quality and looks more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckfarmer (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gorrrillla5: Would you like to add your image to discuss here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • #6 - usually not a good idea to use an image of a politician with his mouth slightly open...ever.--Stemoc 05:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 --- BOD -- 07:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prefer #4, then 7 - Not 2 or 3 though. Not sure who'd think these were good images, unless you were trying to make some kind of joke about Jeremy being red (which wouldn't be funny). NickCT (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Little surprised by the "mouth open" rule some users are expressing @Stemoc and Rwendland:. Strikes me that pictures of politicians with their mouths open to speak can still be flattering images. Take this one of Obama for instance. I'm not sure "mouth open" necessarily equals "bad image". NickCT (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • #2 or #3 The pinkness is slightly unfortunate (and possibly could be toned down with further editing), but it's acceptable as it stands. Overall, this image, in which he is looking approximately towards the camera and with his face at rest, is better than the others, in which he is either caught in the middle of speaking or is in half-profile with cluttered background. Dubmill (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • #7 or #2. Definitely not #4 or #6. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Labour Party actually have an official portrait for him - granted it looks a tad airbrushed, but most politicians have official portraits here on wikipedia? http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/site/img/people/headshots/jeremy-corbyn-mp.jpg VelvetCommuter (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They don't have a free licence., only certain sections of the UK Government.--Stemoc 12:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Venezuela views

Not sure how my edit about Corbyn's Venezuela views is trying "to make a political point". I added something similar to what was existing about Castro (views on subject, criticism of his views). That's what existed and I tried to add a little more substance to the Venezuelan portion. That's all.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn once spoke to a Venezuela solidarity group. We do not know if he was ever a member or what he said to them. It the news media want to turn it into a story then we can include it, but at present it fails Balancing aspects. Articles should not present information neglected by mainstream writing but should present information in accordance with the weight given in those sources. TFD (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:I think that his show of support for President Maduro during the crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela and his acknowledgement of Hugo Chavez's achievements should at least be mentioned. The whole commentator part can be left out now that I looked at other sections. I'm not sure if this section belongs on his main article, it might be more appropriate for the Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn article.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK there has been nothing about Maduro and Corbyn since the crisis began. What policy based reasons do you have for mentioning Venezuela at all? TFD (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I made a new edit. I think it was more with Chávez than Maduro. Cited Chávez as an example for Europe following his death. Hopefully this edit was more beneficial.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose as someone interested in Venezuela, this seems important, but media covering Corbyn do not and there are far more important issues such as Trident. If you think people should know more about this, this article is not the place to start. TFD (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You might be right. Like I said many other times on here, the winds of Venezuela blow me across Wikipedia when I see some articles related to a subject. Plus Chávez doesn't seem as important as Castro, which makes sense why there is more about him in the section. Still, the section appears to be quite useless despite the importance of his stance on Latin America. It could use some attention.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Views on Venezuela with representative direct quotes fit pretty well in the "policy positions" article. Personally I'd rather see his interest in various leftist movements consolidated into a single section with his other membership; whilst unquestioning support for long lists of supposed leftist causes including Latin America is very much representative of who Corbyn is, the actual comments events and reaction themselves are of largely fleeting significance, especially compared with other stuff he's been asked about constantly during the election campaign like the IRA and Hamas. Dtellett (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

suggested copy fix: /described as Keynsian/described as Keynesian/

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.134 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

In Literature

In October 2016 'Jeremy and Corbyn: A Post-Truth novel' by Simon L Baxter was published on Kindle, with a paperback version released in May 2017. The novel is a fictionalised account of the period from the final days of the Ed Miliband leadership to Jeremy Corbyn's victory in the first Labour leadership contest in September 2015. 62.189.7.171 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - I can't see any independent evidence of noteworthiness. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Political positions

Two things I want to say: 1) why is the Policies and views section on this page basically just a shortened version of Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn? Couldn't a {{main}} template suffice? 2) Editors at this page may wish to see the discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Antisemitism and Holocaust denial.  Seagull123  Φ  17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to your first comment, that's kind of the point of a main article isn't it? This page gives a summary of the more detailed positions laid out in the political positions article. I'm not sure what you mean by just having a main template? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Absolutelypuremilk: I was asking, only because the text here seems almost identical to the other page (albeit shortened), and I don't see the point in having a shortened version of the political positions article, when there could just be a {{main}} template (like at Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling and seat projections, something like this:
Main article: Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn
 Seagull123  Φ  19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the point is that the content on this page is notable to make it into the main article on Corbyn, but there is not enough space to include everything, whereas on the other page these positions can be expanded on in more detail. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Tony Blair [2]

Official Photograph

Following the release of MPs official portraits by the UK parliament under CC by 3.0 (It's great, I know) [3], I think it is about time we update the image to

Official portrait of Jeremy Corbyn taken at the UK Parliament in 2017.

. This is a far better image and better represents the office which Corbyn holds.

Support Good enough image in my opinion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Slight preference for the old one. I don't like the background to it, but it seems to convey a more recognisable Corbyn. The official photo is just too bland. It could be any MP. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support More befitting image of an elected public official than one of him at a rally or whatever. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support The old photo has his face quite scrunched up and doesn't represent him accurately. It was acceptable in the absence of this photo but this is far better. Can someone crop it so we can use on election articles? (It's the wrong size at the moment) FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support The MOS says that lead images should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. The new official portrait meets that criterion more strongly than any other contender, by a considerable margin. Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I added a note. <!-- Do not edit without getting consenus on the talkpage first.--> -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support but crop out the top section, I don't get why people post pics which looks like the photographer sneezed while taking the picture, no one cares about the top blue section--Stemoc 01:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn's views on immigration

I added a section on Corbyn's views on immigration, sourced from the New Statesman. It was removed by @Snowded:, saying "Come on, we need third party reports not just adding editor selective summaries off newspaper reports". Could you expand on that? I think I gave a fair summary of his views. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is selective in that it only mentions EU immigration. I don't think also that we should put lots of quotes. It's an article, not a script. TFD (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
What about: In July 2017, Corbyn said that following Brexit, there would still be immigration from Europe to Britain and vice-versa, but decried the "wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions". He said that he would not allow agencies to advertise abroad before advertising them locally.[1] Labour's 2017 manifesto said that it would scrap minimum income rules for the partners of non-EU migrants to make it easier for them to come to the UK.[2] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Its selective per TFD, its not third party to establish significance. ----Snowded TALK 07:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This is also covered in other sources, such as The Guardian, The National, The Telegraph and The Scotsman. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jeremy Corbyn: "wholesale" EU immigration has destroyed conditions for British workers".
  2. ^ "Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn will refuse to commit to reducing migration if he wins the General Election".
Primary sources ----Snowded TALK 14:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
? They are all opinion pieces? Or did you mean you wanted primary sources? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
They are primary sources, you are making a decision about what is or is not significant. You need third party sources to establish something as significant ----Snowded TALK 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow - if they were primary sources they would be transcripts of Corbyn's interviews, rather than comments about his views, which are secondary sources. The Independent also covered Corbyn's comments here Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You need a source which establishes that that interview is notable enough. All you are doing is synthesising/selecting primary sources. You've asked other editors to comment, lets see what happens. ----Snowded TALK 16:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Absolutelypuremilk has presented appropriate secondary sources that do seem to be sufficient to establish notability. We also need to be wary of recentism bias, but I suggest that this information could reasonably be included in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Corbyn's views on this topic are covered here as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Disagree, the sources are direct reports of one interview, nothing to establish significance and it is recent. If we include this then anything said and reported at any time can also be included. ----Snowded TALK 18:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn on the single market

I've also noticed that @Snowded: also removed the content I added about Corbyn wanting to leave the Single Market:

In July 2017, Corbyn said that Britain could not remain in the single market after leaving the EU, saying that membership of the single market was "dependent on membership of the EU". Shadow Minister Barry Gardiner later clarified that Corbyn meant that Labour interpreted the referendum result as wanting to leave the single market, with others pointing out that several countries are in the single market but not in the EU.[1][2]

Could you explain why this was not a fair summary and what else you would have included? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are selecting things from news reports that you consider significant. You need third part to establish significance ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it not significant that Corbyn wants to leave the single market? Anyway, here are some more sources, from The Independent, New Statesman, The Guardian and The Times Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are these articles acceptable? They all have headlines involving Corbyn and the single market, so I assume they think it is significant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As in the last section, these sources are appropriate and do establish notability. Whether we do include these very recent points, or wait until we see whether they are of long-term significance, should be established by consensus on this page; I make no comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Corbyn's views on this topic are covered here as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Are these articles acceptable? , no , they are clearly not, they are opinionated and attacking partisan links - Opinionated links, the liberal democrats say Corbyn is a liar is not a link to be added to a wikipedia biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also the other 4 articles I linked to, rather than the ones in the reflist (now moved to the bottom of this discussion). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep linking the recent news articles, You need to find something which says this has substantial and long term relevance ----Snowded TALK 08:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring neutrally and accurately presented information on Corbyn's position on the Single Market. Ludicrous to argue that a stated position on the most significant long term decision currently facing UK politicians needs special justification for inclusion. (In the fairly unlikely event of it not having long term significance because Corbyn adapts his position, we can always remove/rewrite).Dtellett (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lets get a nice little third party reference shall we and stop throwing around words like 'ludicrous'. We are not going to write a paragraph on every speech and interview and we need those sources to establish statements such as what is the most significant. At the moment words like 'single market' and so on are all code words for more complex issues that need to be sorted out by serious journals/newspapers or academics not editors choosing what they thing is important ----Snowded TALK 19:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded and refer you to "Balancing aspects": Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." We cannot know whether or to what extent the issue is significant to this article except by reference to reliable secondary sources. Furthermore you have presented a lot of opinion pieces which are not reliable, per "News organizations" and therefore do not establish weight. When you ignore policy and fail to check sources before presenting them, you expect other editors to perform a lot of work and lessen the likelihood of obtaining agreement. TFD (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Corbyn wants to leave the single market is covered in The Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Independent, New Statesman, The Guardian, LabourList, Huffington Post and The Times. I'm not sure how many more sources from "serious journal/newspapers" you want here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak for sources which may have been used earlier, but I sourced Corbyn's quote to one of dozens of newspaper articles because it happens to be a fairly neutral description of his comments and even includes a video of him making them. This is not "opinion" of Corbyn or a comment piece. (I can see the argument that Gardiner's comments are an opinion piece, but it is an attempt by an ally to clarify Corbyn's position, so I'm surprised that bit is so objectionable; I'm not going to fight for that sentence if that genuinely is the issue here though?)
Since TFD raises "Balancing aspects", I'd point out that the huge imbalance in the article is a "European Union" section which doesn't discuss any aspect of Corbyn's position on the European Union since before the referendum; since which everybody including Corbyn himself acknowledges his policy preferences have changed. Whilst not everything published by newspapers is inherently notable, I find it difficult to believe that anyone familiar with UK politics would argue in good faith that an active politician's position on whether the UK should leave the European Single Market (definitely not a "codeword") is not a notable part of their views with respect to the European Union (particularly not when they have substantial responsibility for party policy direction and there is a diverse range of opinions within the party). If that isn't notable, not many of the policies referenced in this biography are.
Aside: removing separate and totally unrelated intermediate edits is really unhelpful, would appreciate it if editors didn't do this in future Dtellett (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference, here is the content that Dtellett tried to re-add:

In July 2017, Corbyn said that Britain could not remain in the European Single Market after leaving the EU, saying that membership of the single market was "dependent on membership of the EU", although it includes some none EU countries.[3][4]. Shadow Minister Barry Gardiner later suggested that Corbyn meant that Labour interpreted the referendum result as wanting to leave the single market. [5][6] Corbyn said that Labour would campaign for an alternative arrangement involving "tariff free access"[4] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Transitional Brexit trade deal 'may last until 2022'". Lancashire Telegraph. 23 July 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017.
  2. ^ "Jeremy Corbyn Is 'Parroting Lies' Over Brexit, Warn Lib Dems".
  3. ^ Stone, John (23 July 2017). "Labour would take Britain out of the EU single market, Jeremy Corbyn says". Independent. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
  4. ^ a b Elgot, Jessica (23 July 2017). "Labour would leave single market, says Jeremy Corbyn". Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
  5. ^ May, Josh (23rd July 2017). "Jeremy Corbyn insists UK cannot be part of single market after Brexit". PoliticsHome. Retrieved 7 August 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Gardiner, Barry (24 July 2017). "Brexit means leaving the single market and the customs union. Here's why". Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2017.

1945 swing

It wasn't the biggest swing since 1945. That was, I am afraid, 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.15.99 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it was the biggest swing since 1945, it says it was the biggest increase in vote share since 1945, which is true. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn on the single market

I've also noticed that @Snowded: also removed the content I added about Corbyn wanting to leave the Single Market:

In July 2017, Corbyn said that Britain could not remain in the single market after leaving the EU, saying that membership of the single market was "dependent on membership of the EU". Shadow Minister Barry Gardiner later clarified that Corbyn meant that Labour interpreted the referendum result as wanting to leave the single market, with others pointing out that several countries are in the single market but not in the EU.[1][2]

Could you explain why this was not a fair summary and what else you would have included? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are selecting things from news reports that you consider significant. You need third part to establish significance ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it not significant that Corbyn wants to leave the single market? Anyway, here are some more sources, from The Independent, New Statesman, The Guardian and The Times Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are these articles acceptable? They all have headlines involving Corbyn and the single market, so I assume they think it is significant. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As in the last section, these sources are appropriate and do establish notability. Whether we do include these very recent points, or wait until we see whether they are of long-term significance, should be established by consensus on this page; I make no comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Corbyn's views on this topic are covered here as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Are these articles acceptable? , no , they are clearly not, they are opinionated and attacking partisan links - Opinionated links, the liberal democrats say Corbyn is a liar is not a link to be added to a wikipedia biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also the other 4 articles I linked to, rather than the ones in the reflist (now moved to the bottom of this discussion). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep linking the recent news articles, You need to find something which says this has substantial and long term relevance ----Snowded TALK 08:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring neutrally and accurately presented information on Corbyn's position on the Single Market. Ludicrous to argue that a stated position on the most significant long term decision currently facing UK politicians needs special justification for inclusion. (In the fairly unlikely event of it not having long term significance because Corbyn adapts his position, we can always remove/rewrite).Dtellett (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lets get a nice little third party reference shall we and stop throwing around words like 'ludicrous'. We are not going to write a paragraph on every speech and interview and we need those sources to establish statements such as what is the most significant. At the moment words like 'single market' and so on are all code words for more complex issues that need to be sorted out by serious journals/newspapers or academics not editors choosing what they thing is important ----Snowded TALK 19:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded and refer you to "Balancing aspects": Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." We cannot know whether or to what extent the issue is significant to this article except by reference to reliable secondary sources. Furthermore you have presented a lot of opinion pieces which are not reliable, per "News organizations" and therefore do not establish weight. When you ignore policy and fail to check sources before presenting them, you expect other editors to perform a lot of work and lessen the likelihood of obtaining agreement. TFD (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Corbyn wants to leave the single market is covered in The Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Independent, New Statesman, The Guardian, LabourList, Huffington Post and The Times. I'm not sure how many more sources from "serious journal/newspapers" you want here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak for sources which may have been used earlier, but I sourced Corbyn's quote to one of dozens of newspaper articles because it happens to be a fairly neutral description of his comments and even includes a video of him making them. This is not "opinion" of Corbyn or a comment piece. (I can see the argument that Gardiner's comments are an opinion piece, but it is an attempt by an ally to clarify Corbyn's position, so I'm surprised that bit is so objectionable; I'm not going to fight for that sentence if that genuinely is the issue here though?)
Since TFD raises "Balancing aspects", I'd point out that the huge imbalance in the article is a "European Union" section which doesn't discuss any aspect of Corbyn's position on the European Union since before the referendum; since which everybody including Corbyn himself acknowledges his policy preferences have changed. Whilst not everything published by newspapers is inherently notable, I find it difficult to believe that anyone familiar with UK politics would argue in good faith that an active politician's position on whether the UK should leave the European Single Market (definitely not a "codeword") is not a notable part of their views with respect to the European Union (particularly not when they have substantial responsibility for party policy direction and there is a diverse range of opinions within the party). If that isn't notable, not many of the policies referenced in this biography are.
Aside: removing separate and totally unrelated intermediate edits is really unhelpful, would appreciate it if editors didn't do this in future Dtellett (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference, here is the content that Dtellett tried to re-add:

In July 2017, Corbyn said that Britain could not remain in the European Single Market after leaving the EU, saying that membership of the single market was "dependent on membership of the EU", although it includes some none EU countries.[3][4]. Shadow Minister Barry Gardiner later suggested that Corbyn meant that Labour interpreted the referendum result as wanting to leave the single market. [5][6] Corbyn said that Labour would campaign for an alternative arrangement involving "tariff free access"[4] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Transitional Brexit trade deal 'may last until 2022'". Lancashire Telegraph. 23 July 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017.
  2. ^ "Jeremy Corbyn Is 'Parroting Lies' Over Brexit, Warn Lib Dems".
  3. ^ Stone, John (23 July 2017). "Labour would take Britain out of the EU single market, Jeremy Corbyn says". Independent. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
  4. ^ a b Elgot, Jessica (23 July 2017). "Labour would leave single market, says Jeremy Corbyn". Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
  5. ^ May, Josh (23rd July 2017). "Jeremy Corbyn insists UK cannot be part of single market after Brexit". PoliticsHome. Retrieved 7 August 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Gardiner, Barry (24 July 2017). "Brexit means leaving the single market and the customs union. Here's why". Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2017.

I removed the reference to the civilian killed at Loughall because it doesn't seem relevant to Corbyn - he was commemorating "all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland", which doesn't appear to include civilians (of course I'm sure he was sad about them, it's just that this isn't what is notable here). Removing the civilian death from the sentence also allows for simpler phrasing. There is a full article for Loughall, so anyone interested can click there. N.B. removing the reference to the civilian was supported by Philip Cross and Snowded, but opposed by Garageland66. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Corbyn's views on the single market

Should Corbyn's views on the single market (as in the previous discussion) be included in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Do not include It is editor selection of highly recent news reports without any context. We need third party sources to establish relevance. With the current volatility of the debate what is said, or how that is interpreted is likely to be constantly changing. ----Snowded TALK 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include The relevant part of the article - dedicated to Corbyn's views on the European Union - at present badly misrepresents Corbyn's views on Europe because it doesn't contain any statement of his position since June 23rd 2016, since which it has obviously changed. The fact that Corbyn has subsequently committed to Brexit and also leaving the European Single Market on numerous occasions both in words and actions is not in any serious dispute and my proposed wording used the same quality of reliable third party source as the rest of the article and directly quoted Corbyn. Nor can any serious argument be advanced that it is less relevant or significant than views he expressed a year ago which no longer reflect his views on Britain's settlement with the European Union. I would suggest that editors who dislike any aspects of my wording propose alternative framings of it or additional information/context that should be included (which I'm all in favour of) rather than arguing for the article section to remain outdated and misleading on the basis his position might change again in future. Dtellett (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include This has been covered widely in the media and even if it hadn't, wanting to leave the single market would be important in itself. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include I cannot fathom how Corbyn's position on Europe would not be relevant for inclusion here. This is the single biggest issue in modern British politics and there has been enormous coverage in the media of Corbyn's position especially given his view contradicts that of many Labour supporters and members. AusLondonder (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Duplication of content with page Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn

There is a problem for readers of these pages, that the 'Policies and views' section of this page and the seperate Political positions of Jeremy Corbyncontain very similar material - but not identical. The reader may worry - ' do I need to read both, and do my own compare & contrast ?'

The problem also extends to Editors - must we copy & paste every change?

Yesterday I made a start on cleaning it up - starting initially with just one subsection: the 'Economy and taxation' subsection. The process is

  • copying anything to Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn if it is not already there
  • delete the subsection here
  • leave the title of the subsection here, with a link from the 'empty' section to the 2nd page.

It will take some effort to move all sections.

I am willing to take some of the load.

However, AbsolutelyPureMilk reverted the changes, writing 'Undid revision - revert large-scale deletion without any discussion on talk page. The section here provides a summary of Corbyn's views, which are expanded upon in the "Political positions" article'

So over to discussion guys -

  • do we want to remove the duplication
  • if so what process should we follow

CanterburyUK (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally when there is a split-off article from a main article, it is summarised in the main article and expanded upon in full in the split-off article. See e.g. Hillary Clinton and Political positions of Hillary Clinton or David Cameron and Political positions of David Cameron. Of course if there is content that you don't think is important enough for this article then feel free to recommend a trim, but wholesale deletion without any discussion on the talk page is not the way to go. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Absolutelypuremilk, thanks for chipping in. Firstlt to clarify - no content at all was deleted, merely the deduplication of content: so 'wholesale deletion' is not accurate.
Secondly, the examples you give of Cameron and Clinton: in both the content ratio between political-views vs main page is much higher than for Corbyn. And many of the categories in the politic pages are not present at all in the main Clinton/Cameron page - unlike for Corbyn, resulting a huge amount of it is so very nearly identical.
Question for you: from your own perspective, do you have any arguments against thinning the main Corbyn page down to the levels of Clinton / Cameron? Would you like to kick off a tidy up - perhaps you can suggest some ideas for which sections you think can be first-off to have their content moved across and be removed from the main Corbyn page. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have trimmed down some of the section without losing any of the content - I don't think there is anything which doesn't deserve to be in the main article. Corbyn has only really been in the public eye for two years so it is natural that he is known more for his political views being quite different to that of previous leaders than for his career pre-2015 which doesn't have many sources covering it compared to for Cameron/Clinton. In other words, he is known more for what he thinks than what he has done (especially pre-2015), so it is natural that the article focuses more on this than with Cameron/Clinton. My preference would be to expand the Political Positions article with anything that is missing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Absolutelypuremilk, thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't find myself agreeing with you on 'I don't think there is anything which doesn't deserve to be in the main article'. Coming at the main and secondary page as a first time reader, it is confusing to see so many of the same things repeated again in the 2nd page: and with a good chunk of it pure copy+pasted, but some content is different, and the reader is forced to do the work himself of manually comparing the two documents side by side to get a full picture! So: IMHO:
* there is un-necessary sections in the main page: eg Does the 35-year old Falklands war deserve being there at all?!
* the 'summary' is often not much shorter than the full thing (eg Falklands was is 5 lines versus 6, Venezuala 4 / 6))
* confusingly ordered: ie same content appears under different heading (eg Ukraine in one vs NATO in the other)
* the Syria section is NOT under 'political views' at all, but sandwiched between sections on the cabinet confiuration, and a later cabinet reshuffle!: ie the mechanics of his leadership
How about this for a constructive way forward: you point out that as a recent leader his political views are more visible. This is clear by the pure volume of them in both documents!
So, recognising the prominence the political views have: what do you think about doing the work of
(i) agreeing a consistent set if headings for both pages and then
(ii) producing for each heading better summaries than we have right now: short and sweet! And use just that in the main page, and in the 2nd page use that, then followed by the details.
What are your thoughts? Which sections in your view would most benefit from that work? And yes, I am suggesting that the final summaries will be shorter in the main page than the content there now
Changes like this will take some time and effort, so will needmore than just Absolutelypuremilk and I. So does anyone lurking have any views on this? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


I think most of the summaries on this page already are short and sweet. They're no longer than those on the David Cameron page, which also has a lot more policy-related stuff in the main article body and isn't a particularly good article period. In some areas, there's far more case for expanding the Political Positions article (which should also covers more policy positions that are neither particularly widely-discussed nor emblematic Corbyn policies) rather trimming this one.
The Falklands section belongs in the main article as it's a highly unusual position for a UK politician which has been raised several times over the last couple of years, including in the election buildup.
I'd prefer to fudge Venezuela and Cuba together in this particular argue as both involve similar comments and Solidarity Campaign affiliation with similar regimes for similar reasons, and often grouped together by other reliable sources summarising Corbyn's political positions. But Venezuela is also an example of where the other article might want expanding more than this one trimming
Consistent headings are a good idea, although the "Political positions" article might warrant considerably more headings anyway.
The Syria stuff is in the main article because it's more about the Cabinet than rebelling than Corbyn adopting his usual position on air strikes (which is referenced in the "war and peace" section Dtellett (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree here, the political positions article should be expanded rather than trimming this page. I have changed the Ukraine heading on the political positions article, if there are any further headings you think need changing then we can discuss. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Additionally to what has been said above, the Falklands issue (which is not 35 years old, but still with us today) belongs on this page as it is an unusual position for a UK politician to take and has often been mentioned during his time as Labour leader. Were it not mentioned in the political positions section, his comments about it whilst at Haringey council would instead simply be moved to the historical section, with the note that he remains relatively sympathetic to the Argentine position to this day - but I think that it belongs better in the political positions section as it is a political position. If more content is needed on the separate page for political positions, then go and add it there - that is not a reason for removing information here. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Qualifications

His highest academic qualification is listed as 2x E-grade A-levels, and then he dropped out of an obscure degree course. Did he take any professional qualifications? What were the subjects of the 2x A-levels? 2A00:23C5:C101:5800:C17D:948C:B624:5096 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware - if you have any reliable non-tabloid sources which either say that he does or say what his A-levels were in then feel free to post them here and we can add them to the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn and domestic policies

As it stands at the moment, the article is heavily weighted to presenting what Corbyn's positions on foreign affairs are (which is understandable to some extent because they differ from those who came before him), but there is a distinct lack of presentation of what his domestic policies are.

Most of these (namely on human sexuality and gender, abortion, feminism, open borders immigration, vague "green" issues, etc) would appear to be unremarkable bourgeois liberal autopilot positions, hardly any different from New Labour, but they should probably still be laid out in the article to give a complete picture of his positions.

Recent involvement in supporting the push of Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats in their attempt to criminalise Catholics for protesting against abortion has garner some attention in the media[4][5][6] and from the Catholic bishops which explicitly name him.[7] We should include that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"attempt to criminalise Catholics for protesting against abortion" - that sentence alone discredits you and suggests you should stay away from editing controversial political issues if you cannot maintain a WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The MPs petition signed by Corbyn to the present British Home Secretary aims to make it a criminal offense for these people to hold public protests against abortion and consequently, the Bishop of Portsmouth has specifically stated that it is as civil liberties "freedom of speech/prayer" issue. When you are dealing with the law and attempting to stop people from protesting against something they oppose, that is by its very nature criminalisation. Care to read the references provided and address/discuss the content issue for the article, instead of attempting to patronise with this eye-roll inducing pseudo-indignation (I'll edit whatever articles I like thanks, pal). Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The petition proposes nothing of the sort. You are being either deliberately dishonest or incredibly stupid. You claim the petition is an "attempt to criminalise Catholics for protesting against abortion" - the petition never mentions Catholics or any other religious groups. I know a lot of Catholics and absolutely none of them have even gone to an abortion clinic holding placards, screaming abuse and filming vulnerable women legally accessing reproductive health services. The letter specifically says that anti-abortion groups could be given space in town centres, Parliament Square and Speaker's Corner - so much for making it a "criminal offense" and an "attempt to criminalise Catholics for protesting against abortion". You really need to read an awful lot of our policies such as WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. AusLondonder (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we spare the effete, estrogen induced third-wave feminist screeching about so-called "vulnerable women", etc, etc? I'm not interested in discussing your personal POV on abortion, or who you know, I'm interested in the article content and what the sources state (it would appear that you need to read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). The Catholic aspect is relevant because it is mostly Catholics who attend these vigils and so the issue specifically in regards to Corbyn has been publically addressed by the Catholic hierarchy (including the sitting Bishop of Portsmouth) and the British press when discussing this topic references Catholics (the Guardian article uses a picture of monks as their header). Are you able to discuss the article content issues that I have raised like an adult or not? Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
You ask me to discuss content issues like an adult - all the while you fling around childish, alt-right style insults about "effete, estrogen induced third-wave" feminism. You then say that you're not interested in discussing personal POVs on abortion yet immediately you express a POV "it is mostly Catholics who attend these vigils (sic)". You present zero evidence to support that. Your conduct at Talk:French Communist Party#The "how" and "why" of changes in policies? in which you go on a disturbing and deranged religious rant accusing the French Communist of "really cute, adorable little hissy fits" because the Russian Communist Party "refuse to raise anal-sex to the level of sacrament". You really need to have a good look at your own behaviour before calling others out. AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn article which outlines Corbyn's positions in more detail, including those which are little-discussed, unremarkable and of fairly little consequence. Corbyn adding his signature to a long list of MP's names on an as-yet-unaddressed petition calling for restrictions on protests outside abortion clinics would appear to fall into that category. I do agree that there is scope for additional summary of domestic cover which might note he is pro choice, amongst other things. Dtellett (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Corbyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Despite the fact that Corbyn has described himself as a vegetarian (and has been described by many news outlets as such), he has been known to eat fish (notably whilst avoiding being inducted into the Privy Council): just search "Corbyn fish and chips" into Google. This would technically make him a pescetarian, which has been acknowledged by opinion pieces in al-Jazeera and the Metro, but nowhere else afaik. If anyone can find more reliable sources backing this up (rather than SYNTHing info), then perhaps we should change the descriptor? J.M.Ike (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So we're left with "since the age of 20" and the "stint working on a pig farm in Jamaica", as unsourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. as you suggest, no fish mentionined by condescending and scornful Torygraph here... apparently, he likes a good falafel

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Delete

In May 2017 he appeared on BBC's The One Show discussing his passion [320] and Corbyn offered to help Nadiya Hussain conquer her fear of manhole covers after Hussain revealed she has an irrational fear of drain lids on Twitter.[321]

Trivia which isn't important or adds anything about subject.--Caqer (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Caqer (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Meeting with Czech spy

This is daft Tory press mischief ... in the 1980's Corbyn was a minor politician who like many other politicians ... during the Gorbachev Era / fall of the Eastern block ... may have met with all kinds of diplomats from east. What's more obvious is that at that time Corbyn was a back bench MP who would very unlikely to have had anything of interest to offer a spy. -- BOD -- 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup -- I've deleted it, per WP:NOTNEWS. If it works out that he was a spy, then fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The whole story was rejected as nonsense by Czech officials and historians [8], [9]. As for the "Czech spy", Jan Sarkocy was a Czechoslovak agent of Slovak nationality. In 1980s, “the Czech Republic” did not exist, it was Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia peacefully split into two new countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, in 1993. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
We can mention that officials and historians have rejected if we include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree that WP:NOTNEWS means we don't report every embarrassing Corbyn meeting that briefly hits the headlines, but as the Czech story has now resulted in reactions from a number of politicians including the PM, a libel threat and a response video from Corbyn, it probably does fall into the category of being amongst the more notable ones. The wording should definitely lean towards the formal positions of the intelligence community and article subject himself that he was not a paid informant and did not share "state secrets", but similarly the fact the meetings took place does not appear to be in any dispute. Dtellett (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS didn't seem to apply to Piggate which has its own article despite being based on a single unreliable source (as this claim is). I think we should say (as I originally added to the article) what the newspapers are reporting, i.e. Corbyn met the spy, the spy claimed Corbyn gave him information but this was denied by Corbyn and the Czech security services and let the reader decide. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Piggate is a separate article, just because that might be bad, does not make it right to record rubbish here. Surely when a story gets thoroughly debunked as nonsense by both the relevant Czech officials and leading historians, why is it still here just because some mostly not very authoritative "newspapers" have printed it. We have got to think are any of those "newspapers" actually independent and reliable when reporting on Corbyn for this Wikipedia article. This story was laughed at on the BBC paper review programme the 3 times it came up. Wikipedia really should not be a depository of "newspaper" claims.-- BOD -- 10:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Corbyn meeting a Czech spy is interesting in itself, even if it turns out he didn't pass on any secrets. Are you saying that the Times and the Telegraph are unreliable sources when it comes to reporting on Corbyn? It has also been reported in the Guardian, BBC and the Independent by they way. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Even though certain papers maybe very credible in many other areas, we do know that the Newspapers themselves do have clear and well known political positions. Thus I do believe we should be more careful when we record their outlandish stories, due to those well known political intentions.-- BOD -- 18:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

During the Cold War, how many "businessmen" and diplomats originating in the Eastern Bloc were secretly paid agents of state espionage services? And how many of today's successful politicians and businessmen in the West had meetings, dinners and contact with those state agents without realising they were "spies"? This Slovak spy boasts also that he knew what Thatcher had for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and that he was instrumental in setting up Live Aid... I guess his pension fund was getting low. This is just sensationalism and an attempt by the right-leaning media to smear Corbyn. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We should report what the reliable sources say. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Neil S. Walker (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Although conspiracy theories, hoaxes and defamations may be sufficiently notable to merit their own articles, we don't generally put them into main articles. Pizzagate doesn't get mention in the articles about the politicians who were defamed. Nothing in astronaut articles about faking the moon-landing, nothing in Obama's article about not being born in the U.S.
I agree too that during the Cold War anyone who had contact with Eastern bloc diplomats, trade officials or even people from academics or the arts would inevitably meet spies.
TFD (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Spy allegations.

Hello. Could we maybe add something about the spy allegations? The pressure is mounting up on him and he is not releasing the Stasi file, so it's surprising that it is not here yet. There has to be a way to write it non-biased. The casual reader will go to Wikipedia to get the information on the spy allegations. However, it is not there, so it will be useful to the casual reader. Thanks.

Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the above section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This was discussed above at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Meeting with Czech spy, also look at this [10]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Kalen Ockerman's mural and alleged anti-semitism

Currently, we state in the article that the mural which Corbyn had commented on is "anti-semitic" as if this is an open and shut case. Looking into the issue further, this doesn't appear to be as cut and dry. The artist who created the mural Mear One (Kalen Ockerman) has said the following about it:

"I came to paint a mural that depicted the elite banker cartel known as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, the ruling class elite few, the Wizards of Oz. They would be playing a board game of monopoly on the backs of the working class. The symbol of the Free Mason Pyramid rises behind this group and behind that is a polluted world of coal burning and nuclear reactors."

He has named the six figures painted as representing "Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie & Warburg“

So what the BBC and the Blairite Mafia have presumed is, "the old guys on the mural are kind of weird looking so they must be Jewish, lets run with that angle." The majority of the people depicted in the mural are non-Jewish (only two out of six are Jewish; Rothschild and Warburg) and the common denominator, with the exception of Crowley, is banking and capitalism.

Now I know reactionaries are currently clamouring desperately to redfine mere criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, so it is not surprising that the next level up is claiming any criticism of capitalism or neoliberal economics is inherently anti-semitic as well, but I don't see why we should be pushing this off as fact or aiding the Blairites attempt to astroturf a coup against Corbyn through fake news. We should either say who started off the claims that it is anti-semitic or preferably just describe it in neutral terms as "a political mural in London, created by the American artist Mear One." Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Corbyn and so is about his views, not those of the artist. As the article notes, Corbyn said: "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic". Of course, your characterisation of the criticism of the mural as being of "what the BBC and the Blairite Mafia have presumed" suggests you are approaching the issue with a less than neutral point of view of your own. JezGrove (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Corbyn may have said that in the aftermath, but he has the misfortune of being a politician in a corrupt bourgeois pseudo-democracy, where the media make and break the image of a politician. When the sharks are circling, of course he is going to try and delay their attacks. This doesn't mean we describe the mural as "anti-semitic" as if this is an objective fact.
I am sure Corbyn is fully aware that this has nothing at all to do with Ockerman's mural and is all about the corrupt British establishment (Tories/Blairites) trying to undermine him because he is opposed to capitalism and imperialist warmongering. The Tories/Blairites happen to find it convenient to hide behind the Jewish community, because calling somebody an "anti-semite" is (or at least was, its wearing a little thin now) an effective means of character assassination. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should go with what the reliable sources are saying, as per Wiki policy. If you think the BBC is not a reliable source then Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
All sources have their biases, of course the BBC like all press has its own biases both as a corporation and those who work there as journalists and editors. It certainly is not as bad as some sources but it is not always 100% reliable or always correct. We should have open eyes and open minds and be free question the validity of everything. In times of universal deceit, daring to offer the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -- BOD -- 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think User:Absolutelypuremilk was using the BBC as an example. The removed mural has been taken as being antisemitic, and was painted over for that reason. Jeremy Corbyn now agrees with that assessment. Those frankly non-reliable sources which in one example say "Jeremy Corbyn must stop pandering to Labour’s Israel lobby", which I probably should not link to, are not mainstream and are part of the problem, rather than a solution, and may not have any interest in the safety of British Jews. Philip Cross (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good description of the problems with the mural for those interested. I doubt it would take with someone who thinks the UK is "corrupt bourgeois pseudo-democracy" and rants about the "Blairite Mafia", but that's just me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_12&oldid=1136359431"