Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Getting at Corbyn activist editing

revert back to the compromise version which was agreed upon after much debate on the talk page. The grammar is fine and Kaufman being Jewish isn't in the source. Take it back to talk

(a) If the criterion for mentioning that Kaufman is Jewish means the source used must state it, why then did you violate that selfsame criterion by removing Holocaust survivor to describe Hajo Meyer when the three sources used mention that fact? E.g. writes ‘Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp.’

In one edit, you manage ineptly to affirm and contradict the editing principle you insist on. That shows a POV at hand, i.e. the suppression of the important fact that on both occasions cited as instancing his antisemitism, Corbyn was accompanied by Jews. Crucial contextual detail that is rubbed out on incoherent, frivolous grounds.

(b)The text I corrected as stupidly solecistic ran.

being a member of three mainly pro-Palestinian online groups containing antisemitic posts

You protest that this is grammatically normal. The grammar is fine

Okay. This is a 'back to bubs' level blooper. I’m not going to do kindergarten tutoring on elementary grammar, but will ask this question: what is grammatically fine about writing that 'a group contains antisemitic posts'?

How does a group 'contain posts', be they anti-Semitic, or lampposts, or fencing posts etc? Do you realize that 'contain' means not only (a) holding but (b) curbing, and that this dumb piece of prose could equally mean 'curbing anti-Semitic postings'. A group as subject cannot 'contain' something written, except in sense b, which is not intended, fa chrissake.

People who can't grasp elementary English should not be editing the English version of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's be more tolerant. Kaufman's Jewishness is uncontroversial and widely referenced, so I don't think it needs sourcing, particularly as he has his own page for reference. The infelicitous English is mine, I think: I've tried to express it better. Jontel (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That Hajo Meyer is a Holocaust-survivor, is not disputed and it's mentioned in the same sources. I have readded it.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Something being mentioned by the relevant sources is the absolute minimum condition necessary for inclusion in an article - it is not a sufficient condition. In this case, the text (before your edits) was a compromise version which left out details on both sides, for example it is not mentioned that Eisen wrote an article before the DYR events entitled "My life as a Holocaust Denier", which was removed for brevity. Since that compromise was agreed, the EHRC has also launched an investigation into Labour, which (if we're going to start including more details again) should also be included.

A Facebook group containing certain posts is widely accepted English, and *is what multiple sources say*: "he was a member of five groups which contained anti-Semitic posts" and several supporters’ groups that contained antisemitic comments, "One group, Palestine Live, contained posts denying the Holocaust". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Faecesbook. This page should have no sourcing from the Daily Telegraph which is written by the quarterbaked for the semi-illiterate. That much journalism is paste and tinker-copy what other newspapers put out is well known, and that doesn't make solecisms repeated 'widely accepted English'. No serious wiki editor in his right or left mind would consider the repetition of inconclusive, erratically ambiguous slipshod English to be acceptable because several second-rate sources plagiarize the phrasing for it to achieve ephemeral meme status in the frantic news cycle. We are obliged to write encyclopedically. You have no answer to the construal of it grammatically - all you say is, 'Duh, but some sources repeat it, so it's 'fine'.' It ain't.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

​The relevant sources mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor. There is absolutely no reason to remove it and you have provided no reason to remove it.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, we don't have space to mention everything that is in relevant sources (and certainly shouldn't include things like Kaufman being Jewish when they aren't mentioned by relevant sources). We had a months-long debate to come up with a compromise version which was generally agreed to be fair. If you want to change that version, I suggest an RfC should be opened about whether more details should be included. As above, there are several points on the other side which were left out for brevity, but if we're just adding in random points without discussing on here first then I'll add those points back in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

we don't have space to mention everything that is in relevant so

(a) Please don't use the pluralis maiestatis. (b) You may think the addition of 5 words imperils the article's length, but the argument is silly Over 10% of the article concerns Corbyn and Israel-anti-Semitism, and hiding the fact that in key incidents where he is accused of associating with anti-Semites, he was accompanied by Jews who were not anti-Semitic, is crucial detail in a mere five words. You have, so far, no argument, and eliding that sparse epithetical detail looks highly politicized.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There was no debate and no agreement of whether that information is needed or not. It is absolutely needed as all the sources mention it before mentioning his name. it is actually relevant because it proves that Jeremy Corbyn is not an "anti-Semite" as the fake media is trying to smear him. I suggest not censoring that absolute fact that is mentioned in the sources. Everyone needs that information. "We don't have space" is a ridiculous reason to censor.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"He's got Jewish/black/gay/etc friends" is not, usually, considered a valid argument that someone is not prejudiced, especially in the context of subtle and typically unconscious forms of prejudice like contemporary antisemitism. We shouldn't be holding people up as token Jews or Holocaust survivors in order to draw original research conclusions that aren't logically sound. Vashti (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the meaning of the phrase 'token Jew' referring to Meyer and Kaufman. That means Corbyn insincerely used these Jews to cut criticism of himself for being present on those occasions. That is a snide innuendo, apart from being counterfactual, since the evidence is all to the contrary, that Kaufman and Meyer had views similar to Corbyn's and certainly were not in his pocket.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We must mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor because the same sources mention that. There is no original research here. That's something the same sources said. Removing it is completely unreasonable except for "I just don't like it"--SharabSalam (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attribute that to Corbyn. I was talking to SharabSalam, who explicitly stated that that was what they wanted to do. I tend to agree it's valid to contextualise Hajo Meyer as a Holocaust survivor because the name will mean nothing to most readers - although I would suggest "anti-Zionist Holocaust survivor" or something of the like. But adding it with the intent that people will know that Corbyn has Jewish friends and can't possibly be antisemitic is entirely original research, not good Wikipedia practice, and not what we are supposed to be here to do. If a reliable source *does* say that, then I would argue against giving it any weight, since it is logically fallacious. We can't go adding "some of his best friends are Jewish". Vashti (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. There is no original research involved, as opposed to you wishing to alter the sourced (for Meyer) 'Jewish Holocaust survivor' by replacing it 'anti-Zionist Holocaust survivor'. Since there is astrong linguistic lobbying movement by political interests to conflate 'anti-Zionist' with 'anti-semitic', again here, on this page, we have attempts to tamper with neutrality by choosing terms that are loaded (against Corbyn). Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, there's a bit of unawareness here that members of minority groups can act in ways that mitigate against the interests of those groups. "someone there was Jewish so nothing antisemitic can have been going on" is not a logical thing to deduce. There needs to be *discussion* of this based on sources, not dogwhistles added into the text for the enlightened reader. Vashti (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

'mitigate against the interests of the group'. That's a use of the verb I've never heard of our read in seven decades of using my mother tongue. I see it has some net testimony, but it is a clumsy English assonance error based on some vague recall of 'militate against.' Can editors try to write proper, standard English here. Editing in material from sources requires, for source evaluation, a sensitivity to language. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We should only use the terms that the relevant sources use. We don't want to combine multiple irrelevant sources to imply something not explicitly mentioned in the relevant sources like anti-zionist (which is something far away from anti-Semite BTW)--SharabSalam (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also I don't understand how can an anti-Semite have Jewish friends? Unless you are confusing between anti-zionism and anti-semitism.!?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the minor details of individuals seems to be useful without being undue. Note the EHRC has also launched an investigation into Labour not an investigation about Corbyn which this page is about. RevertBob (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Do any misygonists have wives? The most famous antisemite of all time, Adolf Hitler, famously protected his Jewish former physician, Eduard Bloch. This is an extreme example, but nobody should be able to use Hitler's friendship with / respect for Bloch as a shield to protect him from claims of antisemitism. I'm worried from your posts on this thread that you are beginning with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support that, rather than using evidence to draw a conclusion. Domeditrix (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler??!! Jeremy Corbyn is a left-wing who has a well-known history of fighting against racism and misogyny? Your comment is a violation of BLP. Just because the far-right wing media is accusing his party of being anti-Semite just because he is opposing

the right-wing racist government of Israel doesn't mean you can compare him to Adolf Hitler. --SharabSalam (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Bobrevert, there is no undue weight here and that's not the argument. All of the relevant sources mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor before mentioning his name. There is no reason for Wikipedia to not also mention that.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Corbyn to Hitler, of course I'm not. I haven't made a judgment on whether Corbyn is antisemitic, it's a very complex issue. I'm saying that having a Jewish friend isn't a bar to being an antisemite, and gave an example to show why that line of reasoning doesn't hold water. Domeditrix (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone has Jewish friends and he has a history of fighting racism I doubt that you would judge he is a anti-Semite. There is no proof that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semite. There is only a smear campaign against him because he oppose the policies of the right wing government of Israel that is also occupying the Palestinian land. So that was my argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(a)This is a BLP article. (b)It concerns a figure whom, according to meta-analyses of media coverage of his career, has been subject to intense innuendo, smearing and political hostility.(c) The essence of the latter is the suggestion that he is anti-Semitic, if not a Holocaust denier. (d) The page has a 10%, arguably undue, weighting surveying just this one aspect -his relationship to one ethnic group and one foreign country -.

So one has a mine-field or POV-powder keg situation in writing up the article. Editors arguing that, in the pivotal cases where he is skewered as associating with anti-Semites (Hajo Meyer/DYR commemoration) one must obfuscate the fact that he attended these two events in the company of Jewish people or showcasing one Jewish person's views are POV-pushing. The textual argument concerns 5 words out of 1,000, 5 words clarifying, per sources, that Corbyn attended a talk by a Jewish Holocaust survivor, and was accompanied by a Jewish member of Parliament to a commemoration of the Deir Yassin massacre.One can argue till the cows come home that 'we' don't need to mention these people were Jews, but the fact remains that the paragraphs in question are all about Jews, represented as critical of Corbyn's attitude to Jews. So those editors want the Jews critical of Corbyn paragraphs cleansed of reminder (as in sources) that other Jews found common ground in these instances with Corbyn. It is obvious that neutrality requires a balancing act: if you want to highlight Jewish criticism of Corbyn, you cannot in good faith bury by excision or silence, the fact that in two of those controversial moments, Corbyn was supported by Jewish voices.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, there are so many problems here that I'd rather do something more productive with my time than continue to comment here. Can I suggest that, while you're all pushing your POV to the best of your abilities, you look up contemporary antisemitism and the ways antisemitism manifests in the modern world - nobody who doesn't understand that should be *editing* this page, unless you're just here to talk about smears - which, by the way, is an antisemitic trope in itself (suggesting the very real concerns of most of the Jewish community are fabricated to "get Corbyn", and thus that Jews can't be believed, control the media, are the enemy within, etcetera). Also look up how prejudice functions in the real world - there's a reason "some of his best friends" is a joke.

It's incredibly depressing to me that this page is being so badly edited. Vashti (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This page has obviously become a war-ground about subjective opinion regarding Jeremy Corbyn. The most glaring problem is that a simple google search on any random day of the week brings up multiple stories about accusations of anti-semitism leveled against Corbyn. As is clearly spelled out in various policies such as wp:balance and wp:npov the page should reflect that. Instead the discussion devolves into a cirurcular debate about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite. Balance means that major and repeated stories in the mainstream media need to be reflected accordingly. Ben133 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The page does include pretty much all the accusations, even though they are typically based on misrepresentations through exaggeration, being selective, hyperbole or in some other way. Just to correct you, the accusations against Corbyn tend to be around meetings he had with pro Palestinians some years ago i.e. guilt by association. The Conservative press, right wing labour MPs and leading Jewish organisations very much do not want a Corbyn led government and it would be naive to ignore that motivation. Jontel (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Telegraph is only used once in that section, and the Guardian and Observer are used far more than the Times, I don't think that's a fair comment. Getting back to the original point of the discussion, no one has yet produced a source which mentions Kaufman being Jewish in relation to him attending the DYR events, so it seems to fail WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For Kaufman, I agree. We don't need to mention that he is Jewish. We already have a wikilink to his article. For Hajo Meyer, we should mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor because relevant sources mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

There should be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party in the See also section, as is clearly practice based on Boris Johnson's See Also section.

It's already linked to 4 times in the article body and MOS:NOTSEEALSO says: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Press TV

The article states that Corbyn received up to 20k from Press TV and this shows in the register of members' interests, but the links are to articles about the figure in register of members' interests rather than the actual register of members' interests, which shows that the figure was up to 10k. Why are secondary sources being used when there is a primary source that contradicts them? See the following link for a primary source showing the register of member's interests does not show Corbyn receiving up to 20k from Press TV https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10133. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We go with secondary sources where available because there is potential to misinterpret primary sources. In this case Corbyn explicitly replies to the 20k figure saying that it's not a lot of money, rather than disputing the figure, which implies it's correct. He also says that the money was used to fund his constituency office, so perhaps that is where the difference comes from. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The register of members' interests shows 2 instances of Corbyn being paid up to 5k, once in 2009 and once in 2012. I'm just not sure how you can say the register of members' interests shows Corbyn received up to 20k when if you look at the actual register of members' interests it does not show that. Perhaps something could be added about how the register of members' interests shows Corbyn received 1 payment of up to 5k in 2009, and 1 payment of up to 5k in 2012, and that it has been reported that this makes 20k by secondary sources (so as to avoid confusion)?

Additionally I've watched the video where it's claimed Corbyn explicitly responds to the figure and I can't find the bit your referencing. Do you have a timestamp? The video is here https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/31/watch-our-live-qa-with-jeremy-corbyn-now/. It is raised at 20 mins but the figure is not mentioned, and it doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in the video. Thanks83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't suppose Corbyn remembered the exact figure. The article gives the register as the source, so we should go with what the register says; it is very clear. Business Insider may have included the Al-Jazeera payments by mistake. I've updated the article. Thanks for raising it. Jontel (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Having looked further, there are four places where Corbyn receives payment from "imafilm ltd." (25 June 2012, 6 July 2011, 6 September 2010 and 2 September 2009) but only two of these explicitly mention Press TV, which is maybe where the confusion is coming from. Good thing we used the secondary sources! Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Given imafilm ltd is registered as a video production service in London, England and there's no figures on the register for it I'm not sure that it provides sufficient evidence that Corbyn received an addition £10k from Press TV. The exact wording of each one is

"Interviews for Press TV, imaFilm Ltd, Level 7, Westgate House, Westgate Road, London W5 1YY. (Up to £5,000)

"Payment from MEDIA: imaFilm Ltd, Level 7, Westgate House, W5 1YY; news programme, for media presentation. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 23 June 2010)"

"Payment from MEDIA: imaFilm Ltd, Level 7, Westgate House, W5 1YY; news programme, for media presentation. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 23 June 2010)" (this one is on twice)

"Interviews for Press TV, imaFilm Ltd, Level 7, Westgate House, Westgate Road, London W5 1YY. (Up to £5,000)"

So there aren't 4 separate incidents but 3, with one repeated, and only 2 explicitly mention the maximum amount of money he was paid. I'm still not sure where we're supposed to getting 20k figure from in the register. Additionally, each new record is highlighted in yellow when it first appears and Press TV only appears once in yellow, indicating that each time after that it's not a new item, link here -https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/090902/090902.pdf. Also in the link here - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10133 items are recorded in the green column when they're added and in the red when they're removed, so I think you may have misread the website. Between all that I think it's reasonable to say that it is not recorded in the register that Corbyn received 20k from Press TV.

Also did you find the bit in the video yet where Corbyn explicitly responds to a question that mentions the 20k figure? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't, but given multiple secondary sources are using the 20k figure, (see the three sources in the article as well as this one) I suggest we go with that rather than your interpretation of the primary source. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you're suggesting that what secondary sources say is in the register of members interests is more accurate about what is in the register of members interests than what is actually in the register of members interests? Is https://www.theyworkforyou.com no longer an accurate source for what is in the register of members interests, and if you don't believe it is, is that your own personal view or is it official Wikipedia policy? How about we split the difference and include information about how there is one unique record in the register of members interests showing Corbyn received 5k from Press TV (repeated entries are not highlighted in yellow) and that some media reports say that he received 20k from Press TV? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Or just say that he was paid, without mentioning a figure. Surely this sort of stuff is not on other profiles. Jontel (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely the paragraph is WP:UNDUE anyway. People are paid for media appearances. How is this relevant? Jontel (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Being paid by an Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting station is rather significant and merits a mention given coverage of this issue. I do however, agree, that the precise sum paid is a trivial detail. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added some more detail as to why this particular media appearance is notable. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you get back to me about why you think https://www.theyworkforyou.com is not an accurate source for what is in the register of members interests? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We have multiple NEWSORGs reporting 20,000 quid - e.g. Guardian in 2019, Times of Israel 2016, HuffPost UK 2016. Specifically www.theyworkforyou.com only has a 2009 entry (removed in 2012) - while RSes are reporting five paid appearances 2009 through 2012. They might be taking a snapshot of entires and missing some dates.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess the debate is which is a more accurate record of what is in the Register of Members interests. Theyworkforyou.com and the actual register, or NEWSORGs. Personally I'm inclined to go with the former. I can only find one entry for Press TV for Corbyn in the register where an amount is quoted and it is highlighted in yellow (indicating a new item). Can anybody find any others?

Below is a logical and sourced argument for why the line "for which he was paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons" should not appear on the article. If anyone thinks any of my premises are incorrect or any of my conclusions don't follow please let me know. Otherwise I'd be obliged if someone could update the article:

• a) the parliament.gov.uk website contains an accurate recording of what is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/)
• b) if an item is in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• c) if an item is not in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• d) if an item is highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is a new item
• e) if an item is not highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not a new item
• f) there is only one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/090902/090902.pdf)
• g) the other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV are not in yellow and therefore they are not new items
• h) the one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow states he was paid up to £5,000
• i) there are no other items other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV that are in yellow
• j) therefore there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• k) if there there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press IV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests there is not a record of him receiving up to £20,000 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• l) therefore it is factually incorrect to say Jeremy Corbyn was "paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons"
• m) factually incorrect information should not be wikipedia pages
• n) the line "for which [Jeremy Corbyn] was paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons" is factually incorrect
• o) therefore the line "for which [Jeremy Corbyn] was paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons" should not be on this wikipedia page.

Thank you 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you willing to become a registered user to enable you to edit this article? Jontel (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am, but I'm not sure why someone else can't edit it if they find my argument to be logical and valid. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who think this is notable argue that Corbyn should have boycotted Iran as a matter of principle. There is no issue about him receiving an appearance fee, which is normal, was small and was used to meet his constituency office costs. Moreover, there can be no argument that Corbyn was motivated to appear for the money. He has shown little or no interest in money, or indeed material goods, throughout his long political life, in distinction from many of his parliamentary colleagues. Moreover, he is very happy to talk to all sorts of unpopular people: Palestinians, Venezuelans, IRA etc. for no charge. It is a standard part of his political practice. So, I think we can avoid the question of exactly how much was paid, covering several appearance over a number of years, especially given the apparently unclear and inexact nature of the amount. The only reason for including it would be to falsely imply immorality of some kind. I have amended the article along these lines. Jontel (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The payment has been covered widely - we don't censor the truth just because you think it might imply immorality. I've edited it to several thousand pounds, which covers both amounts until we come to a better solution. Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What are your reasons for not using the exact figure from the Register Of Members' Financial Interests, and regarding my argument do you think any of the premises are incorrect or conclusions don't follow, or do you accept it? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether any of the premises are correct or not - this is precisely why we use secondary sources rather than using original research to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in primary sources. Nowhere in the Register does it say "Corbyn received £x from Press TV", so it would be extrapolating to use a figure generated ourselves to contradict the multiple secondary sources which use the 20k figure. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That was covered in parts a) to f) of my argument, which includes a link to the Register giving the specific amount Corbyn received from Press TV. Linking to a primary source is no more original research than linking to secondary sources is. There is no subjective interpretation in linking to the Register Of Members' Interests, it is very clear what is and isn't in there and it's used on plenty of other wikipedia pages as a source. There is nothing to suggest that the official government website I linked to is not the most reliable source of what is in the Register Of Members' Interests. Please engage with my argument. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please can someone either remove, amend, or add a link to the Register Of Members' Interests (available at https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/) for the line "Corbyn appeared on a call-in show on Press TV, an Iranian government television channel, four times between 2009 and 2012, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons". Currently there is not citation for this. Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead not lede

Editors usually follow Wikipedia's guidance on terminology, I suppose, so just to point out that Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that: 'The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Jontel (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Including Corbyn's position on Brexit in the lede

Do other editors think his position on this is notable enough for the lede? The current content is:

In August 2019, Corbyn outlined a plan to prevent a no-deal Brexit, which involved holding a no-confidence vote in the government and forming a temporary caretaker government. He would then campaign for a "public vote on the terms of leaving the European Union, including an option to Remain".

Thoughts? Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

As far as I know the "Brexit" is a controversial issue in the UK. I expect many people would be looking for what Jeremy Corbyn thinks about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because it is huge and of extended duration, already running for three years of his four years in office. More content on it is required in 5.4 or 4.5 and some sort of summary of his engagement with the issue put in the lead. The current sentence in the lead is too specific. Jontel (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree more content is needed in the main body, I'll do that tomorrow evening if I get a chance (and no one does it before). What about

In August 2019, Corbyn outlined a plan to prevent a no-deal Brexit, which involved forming a temporary caretaker government and then campaigning for a "public vote on the terms of leaving the European Union, including an option to Remain" ? Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your suggested summary is fine with me. Good luck with the Brexit content. It will not be easy because there are a number of factions within Labour that have their own views on how Brexit should (or shouldn't) be implemented. You will need to strain out the non-Corbyn voices to get at his position. I don't think it has been a major focus for Corbyn as ultimately it is up to the government to put it in place. Burrobert (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn A-Level results (part 2)

Jeremy Corbyn's A-level grades were discussed earlier here: . Nevertheless, the article incorrectly states now that '[Jeremy Corbyn] achieved two A-Levels, at grade E, the lowest-possible passing grade, before leaving school at 18'. Grade E is the lowest possible passing grade only since 2002. From 1963 to 1986 grade O was the lowest possible and grade E was the next-to-lowest. Also the article that is put as a source to the very incorrectly statement: goes as: '...former Prime Minister John Major joked that Corbyn performed better than him – because he got O-levels'. I am updating the article with this correction. A.I.K. (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Grade O wasn't an A-Level pass mark (see here): "From 1963 to 1974 students who did not pass at Advanced level but were judged to have reached pass standard at the Ordinary level were recorded as having reached the pass standard in the equivalent Ordinary subject."     ←   ZScarpia   11:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism accusations: claim with irrelevant source

The article includes the sentence: ‘Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, and supporting Jewish communal initiatives.’ The last (italicized) clause has a footnote refence to https://www.jewishtelegraph.com/alderman.html, but the linked article makes no mention of Corbyn. So I’m deleting both the clause and the footnote reference. - Aingotno (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Really that entire section ought to be deleted. It's pretty obviously a recent political canard. NickCT (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Aingotno, This is a photo from the Jewish telegraph newspaper source. It mentions Corbyn and that he is supporting supporting Jewish communal initiatives. See the right side.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have fixed the issue. The Jewish telegraph update articles written by Alderman in the same URL so I used an archived version.

Geoffrey Alderman seems notable and the Jewish telegraph is also notable so it is worth inclusion.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Money Received by Press TV

Please can someone edit the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285)" as this is factually incorrect.

• a) the parliament.gov.uk website contains an accurate recording of what is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/)
• b) if an item is in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• c) if an item is not in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• d) if an item is highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is a new item
• e) if an item is not highlighted in yellow in the parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests it is not a new item
• f) there is only one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/090902/090902.pdf)
• g) the other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV are not in yellow and therefore they are not new items
• h) the one item in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV highlighted in yellow states he was paid up to £5,000
• i) there are no other items other items in parliament.gov.uk's record of the Register of Members' Financial Interests for Jeremy Corbyn working for Press TV that are in yellow
• j) therefore there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• k) if there there is only one record of Jeremy Corbyn receiving up to £5,000 from Press IV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests there is not a record of him receiving $26,285 from Press TV in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
• l) therefore it is factually incorrect to say Jeremy Corbyn received $26,285
• m) factually incorrect information should not be wikipedia pages
• n) the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285)" is factually incorrect
• o) therefore the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285)" should not be on this wikipedia page.

When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

I am requesting the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285) was "not an enormous amount"" be amended to the "He also said that the money received was "not an enormous amount"". My reasons for this are stated in full on the Talk page. In short, a source says the amount is in the Register Of Member's Financial Interests, but the actual Register and the website theyworkforyou.com do not show the amount claimed.

When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion.

Thank you 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Sceptre (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence on antisemitism

I appreciate that this has been discussed before, but there is room for improvement. I propose replacing:

• 'He has also faced criticism surrounding allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party and for alleged antisemitic associations prior to becoming leader. He has asserted his opposition to antisemitism and commitment to rooting it out of the party.'

with

• ' While Corbyn has regularly condemned any antisemitism in the Labour Party, he has been criticised for not doing more to tackle it.'

This is much shorter, more elegant and addresses the point more directly. It is rather clumsy to use the same word three times in two sentences, which also gives it unwarranted emphasis. It doesn't mention past associations, but these are subordinate to the issue of the party. Jontel (talk)

I don't think it's true to say that his associations are subordinate to the issue of the party, given that his past associations and comments take up most of the space about the allegations against him. If anything, that should come first. We could replace one example of antisemitic with racist if you feel strongly about using antisemitism three times? Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's as much about slimming it down as reducing repetition. I've put associations first in this version. OK?

• Media coverage of Corbyn is generally negative. With regard to antisemitism, which he has condemned, he has been criticised for past associations and his response to allegations in the Labour Party.' Jontel (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In terms of balance that's fine with me, but it's slightly awkward wording. I'll try and think of a better way to word it. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Negative doesn't illustrate who is wrong. It can imply that media is being unintentionally negative with Corbyn because Corbyn is doing negative things.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That's kinda the point! We shouldn't say in Wiki's voice whether the media or Corbyn is correct. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Though we can say that the media's reporting has been criticised:

• London School of Economics and Political Science, Academic Report on Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn: Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: From Watchdog to Attackdog - Bart Cammaerts, Brooks DeCillia, João Magalhães, César Jimenez-Martínez
• Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm (Media Reform Coalition and Birbeck College, Department of Film, Media and Cultural Studies) - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Peace prizes in lead

Corbyn has won two peace prizes so far, which only received secondary coverage in the Camden New Journal so far. It seems unreasonable to include this in the lede, especially when it doesn't mention (for example) the breakaway of Labour MPs complaining about his leadership. Bellowhead678 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about him, so I think it is reasonable to mention these honours in the lead even though they are not highly prestigious, as he does not have very many. They are independent endorsements of his work for peace which is a large part element his career. As the article notes, the media does not go out of their way to praise him, so it is not surprising that coverage is limited. On the splitters, the MPs leaving are compaining about Labour Party policies and behaviours, not solely Corbyn. Despite the BBC headline, decisions in the Labour Party on Brexit and disciplinary procedures are made by the NEC and possibly the Shadow Cabinet, not Corbyn alone. Their departure is in the lead in the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn article. I do not think they should be in the lead here. Jontel (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If you look at FA-rated political biography articles like Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela, and Jomo Kenyatta, you will see that they provide a rounded assessment of the individuals in question in their fourth paragraph. That includes describing both what their subjects have been praised for, and what they have been criticised for. At present, the Jeremy Corbyn article only states what he has been criticised for. This needs to be corrected asap. Describing Corbyn's prizes for peace work is a good way of going about that. The sentence really should be restored. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with Midnightblueowl. G-13114 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

On Midnightblueowl's point, a rounded assessment in the fourth paragraph is appropriate for those whose careers are over, like those he mentioned. BLPs of active political leaders do not typically have this. Is it recommended by Wikipedia? To avoid this misunderstanding, I suggest adding the sentences on the media and antisemitism to the third paragraph. We can add a fourth paragraph if he becomes prime minister or as a rounded assessment after he resigns from leadership. Jontel (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Or we could move the sentence on Brexit to the start of the fourth paragraph? Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Jontel (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be helpful to move the Brexit sentence to the start of the fourth paragraph. It would complicate the thematic structuring of the lede as it presently exists. Indeed, I'm not even sure that the Brexit sentence is 'lede-material'. Corbyn's present views on the Brexit process are not a crucial part of his biography; to me it reads like WP:Recentism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@JJARichardson: removed the sentence about the peace prizes from the lead, saying that it was WP:PEACOCK. I agree, given the lack of secondary coverage. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we include thirteen MPs resigning in the lead?

Thirteen MPs (Field, Berger, Coffey, Gapes, Lewis, Leslie, Shuker, Smith, Umunna, Ryan, Austin, Mann and Ellman) have resigned from Labour due to concerns over Corbyn's leadership. Should we mention this in the lead? Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Negative In considering this, we might consider whether it is distinctive i.e. have many more MPs resigned the whip than have done under other leaders. I suspect we will find that a number of MPs have resigned under other leaders. A second consideration is whether their resignations were over a major policy point. In reality, some mentioned Brexit, some antisemitism, some were facing deselection and the context was that much of the PLP are hostile to Corbyn anyway and were attracted by the prospects of a centrist grouping. A third, perhaps most important consideration is whether their departure prompted a major policy shift or adversely affected Labour's prospects. This is hard to assert. Labour has always asserted its opposition to antisemitism. On Brexit, its policy has arguably not greatly shifted or, if it has, it is due to multiple pressures. On Labour's prospects, the Change group failed and Labour's and Corbyn's decline in support can be ascribed to its Brexit policy and media coverage rather than their departure per se. In conclusion, I would say include it in the article but not the lead. Jontel (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is how many resigned due to concerns over the leadership - none did so under Miliband or Brown, and only four over Blair's 13 years as leader. See List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation for a full list. The last leader who had a (relatively) high proportion of MPs leave due to his leadership, Michael Foot, has it mentioned in his article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article on Michael Foot: "A centrist faction of the party broke away in 1981 to form the SDP." It does not say that the MPs who left the Labour Party to form the SDP left specifically because of Foot's leadership, which, in any case, would not have been true. The formation of the SDP was a much more major event than the recent departure of Labour MPs: the leaders of the SDP had been far more significant figures in the Labour party, the SDP went on to electoral success, and it was a major force in British politics.     ←   ZScarpia   00:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Negative I doubt you could express it in such a way that it is both neutral and summarises the part it plays in the body of the article proportionately.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "Twelve MPs have resigned from Labour due to concerns over Corbyn's leadership." is a neutral summary. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on Michael Foot, we could have: 'A small centrist faction of the party broke away in 2019 to form Change UK.' However, the numbers and calibre here was much lower. Few had ministerial prospects and a number were facing losing the whip anyway due to disciplinary action or lack of confidence by their CLPs. I don't think it is warranted tbh. Jontel (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that from - every one of them had held frontbench positions apart from Gapes and Ellman who had both been Chairs of Select Committees. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to 'calibre', they did not have track record of the top SDPers. More relevant than that and than their past positions is their expectations under Corbyn. Jontel (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Whereas the leaders of the SDP had been full cabinet ministers.     ←   ZScarpia   00:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: We have a section describing the resignation of 7 MP's over "Corbyn's handling of Brexit and of allegations of anti-semitism". Are there sources saying that Corbyn's leadership was the factor in all 12 resignations? I haven't looked at all the resignations. The one article I read about Ellman implied she resigned to avoid being triggered by her local members. Her letter of resignation apparently said she would not support a Corbyn government but the article did not give further details. Burrobert (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should take what they say at face value. They are all choosing the reasons that suit them and damage Labour. It is safer to say what they did, rather than the spin, particularly in the lead. Jontel (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this not original research? Domeditrix (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CALC says that basic arithmetic (such as adding up the numbers of MPs) doesn't count as WP:OR. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean counting the thirteen MPs, I meant user:Jontel's assertion: "I do not think we should take what they say at face value. They are all choosing the reasons that suit them and damage Labour". Domeditrix (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A further reason for not over-emphasising these departures in this article by putting it in the lead is that Labour is governed by procedures. Decisions on various matters are made by the Annual Conference, the National Executive Committee and the Shadow Cabinet. It can be convenient and appealing to commentators to ascribe everything to Corbyn but that would be wrong. Jontel (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah apologies, Domeditrix, I see your point now. Yes I think it's reasonable to say that they left citing Corbyn as the reason (at least in part), and maybe a response from Corbyn/Labour if editors wish. Jontel, I'm not really sure what your point is here? The MPs say they are leaving due to Corbyn's leadership, not decisions which have been taken by Conference, Cabinet or the NEC. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Change UK article, 'Berger described Labour as having become "institutionally antisemitic", while Leslie said Labour had been "hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left" and Gapes said he was "furious that the Labour leadership is complicit in facilitating Brexit".' These might be related to Corbyn's leadership, but it is misleading to reduce these multifarious aspects to 'Corbyn's leadership'. Moreover, they immediately founded a new party with some Conservatives, so they had a bigger agenda than personal issues. Further, politicians leaving one party to set up another will seek to create a certain narrative around that. Finally, there is little or no independent way of verifying their motivations. A number were facing deselection. So, I would prefer that their departure not be in the lead but, if it is, I suggest we omit the complex and contested issue of motivation. Jontel (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Negative - This isn't relevent and leadworthy to this page. If it needs to go anywhere, it should go on the Labour page. RevertBob (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Negative In 100 years, no one would say "Jeremy Corbyn. Isn't he the Labour leader who had 13 defections?" TFD (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

Please delete this duplicate word in the section "Allegations of antisemitism": "several of the signatories had themselves been been accused of antisemitism" 81.96.15.89 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the media being "hostile" or "negative" towards Corbyn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we describe the media as being "hostile" or "negative" (or another word)? Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the proposition to be voted on is whether the wording should remain: 'Media coverage of Corbyn is generally hostile.' Jontel (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Voting

• Negative, because hostile implies definitively that the media is in the wrong - negative lets the reader make their own decision. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Negative, which as per Bellowhead has slightly less pejorative connotations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Positive. Hostile means 'showing or feeling opposition or dislike; unfriendly.' It is asserting that media coverage shows these features. There is a commentary and analysis, quoted in the article, which assert that. and In being hostile, it is also negative. That it is hostile does not mean that the coverage is always or necessarily unbalanced, but does suggest that it often is. I can see the argument that there should be more about this in the article, perhaps a section, but it is already mentioned and is a significant characteristic of his leadership. Jontel (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Positive. I disagree that the word 'hostile' implies fault on the part of the media or that it necessarily has pejorative connotations. 'Hostile' expresses the strong opposition of most of the media whereas 'negative' implies something more woolly.     ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. It depends. What are the sources supporting each option? --MarioGom (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Sure. Here are the analyses.

1) Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism. {http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn} {https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html}

2) More than forty senior academics have written to the Guardian to condemn what they see as an anti-Corbyn bias in media coverage of the antisemitism debate. The letter condemns journalism that “so blatantly lacks context, perspective and a meaningful range of voices in its determination to condemn Jeremy Corbyn”, saying the media has weaponized antisemitism against Corbyn ahead of important elections.

3) The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Overall, we found 95 clear cut examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting on mainstream television and online news platforms, with a quarter of the total sample containing at least one such example. The problem was especially pronounced on television – which reaches far wider audiences by comparison – where two thirds of the news segments on television contained at least one reporting error or substantive distortion. Jontel (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The LSE report is based on coverage in 8 newspapers for 2 months of 2015. Point 3 is about the Labour Party, not Corbyn specifically. A further description of the limitations of the sources is in the Discussion section, below. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Unfavourable might be a less loaded word? Bonusballs (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hostile. I am more persuaded by Jontel's argument than by those of Bellowhead678 and others. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neither. Either term is subjective. If coverage has been "critical", use that phrase but explain the context and provide good references.(Summoned by bot) --Rpclod (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neither. Per the arguments of user:Rpclod above. Either term is subjective and, to my mind, amounts to editorialism (WP:OR) using Wikipedia's voice. Critical can be used, in context. We may state that some sources believe coverage of Corbyn has been 'hostile' or 'unduly unfavourable' (or words to that effect) – but we should not be using Wikipedia's voice when reporting such subjective statements. Domeditrix (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neither, because neither is supported by enough sources. The sources given above are mostly about the coverage of Corbyn in relation to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, not Corbyn in general. So, if negative media coverage is to be mentioned, we need to be clear that it is/was largely about Corbyn in the context of anti-Semitism. There's also very little coverage of this in the main text, so I'm not convinced it should be in the lead at all, which should summarise the body. Because the sentence is a recent addition to the article and is being disputed, I've hidden it: the norm is to show the last consensus-based content in an article, not to include the new thing that is being discussed. EddieHugh (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hostile it fine with me based on reports I have seen. I would also suggest a section in the body discussing media treatment of Corbyn. Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hostile as per Jontel and ZScarpia, perfectly good enough evidence has been provided in the research done in Jontel's links above. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hostile as per the evidence provided by Jontel, and the arguments made by ZScarpia, Burrobert and Bodney. RevertBob (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hostile per sources presented, negative is ambiguous, it can mean that the media is wrong or that Corbyn is wrong. The media is definitely wrong in its coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. There are a lot of evidences for this and I actually saw this hostility myself in 2018, during the smearing campaign, especially by the telegraph, the BBC and the daily mail.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• NOT Hostile ... the term implies "antagonism" ... perhaps some of the blogs and Opinion pieces can be said to be hostile, but the news media in general?? Here is a sample article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/obey-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-warns-cabinet-dissenters Is it hostile? Every politician in a high position is treated in a hostile manner by some of the news media: a Tory-leaning newspaper is more likely to be negative about Corbyn than one that traditionally backs the Labour Party. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• NOT Critical I'm less inclined to see a substantial difference between hostile and negative, although hostile implies a more openly active opposition than negative. Discussing mainstream media coverage as a whole, then negative is probably more appropriate (there are differences between the BBC - mostly negative - and the Daily Mail - hostile). Some more sources: Probably the most senior and widely recognised UK journalist David Dimbleby noted in 2017 that Jeremy Corbyn treated unfairly by press. Peer-reviewed journal Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines: "We concluded that some BBC coverage does demonstrate bias and partiality against Corbyn in subtle modes where tone alters the meaning of the script and visuals and the BBC fared badly compared to other mainstream TV news." "Character Assassination" Covering the vote: UK coverage of Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, and the 2017 General Election. New Vistas, 3 (2)--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The CDA one is interesting, although it's of just one Corbyn speech (it was a failed attempt to get more research funding). The relevant part of the second is just a summary of the LSE report listed above. EddieHugh (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Neither One small scale study, an open letter by a few academics, and a speech by Corbyn supporter does not represent consensus of Reliable Sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Neither. Agreed with the arguments of User:Rpclod above. Painting the media as a whole in a certain manner would, to me, require great support. Ifly6 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes, I'd be happy with unfavourable. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I see unfavourable as a more moderate version of hostile. Certainly, different journalists and outlets can take somewhat different approaches. However, the three analyses do paint a black picture, so I am hesitating to accept it. Also, Unfavourable can be used in different ways. I have seen alternative adjectives in the analyses for consideration: 'antagonistic', 'critical', 'inaccurate', 'distorted', 'biased'. Do any of these seem approriate? I think antagonistic works best for me. It is a bit like hostile but perhaps with less aggressive connotations. Jontel (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm an American so I'm not familiar with "the undeniable fact that the British newspaper landscape is heavily skewed to the right" which I noted in one of the links offered above. The only British press I read is The Guardian which I like and I understand is pretty liberal (like me). To avoid giving the impression that the press is making a fair judgement I would hope that if you say anything at all about his relationship with the press in the lead that it is well-covered in the body. For now I go along with Jontel's suggestion of "antagonistic." Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The media approach to coverage of Corbyn is not restricted to allegations of antisemitism within the party, as the LSE report makes clear. It is a general approach. I agree that there should be a section on it. Jontel (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The LSE report is based on coverage in 8 newspapers for 2 months of 2015. Summarising that single study of one very narrow time period and the anti-Semitism commentaries as "Media coverage of Corbyn is generally hostile" isn't accurate. At the very least, caveats pointing out the context(s) are required: 'Press coverage of Corbyn around the time of his leadership campaign and on the topic of anti-Semitism has been generally negative', or something like that. EddieHugh (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarise the article, so I have added a short section towards the end to aid this. I think it does indicate that perceived or actual media bias has been an issue throughout Corbyn's leadership. Certainly, many commentators supporting this can be added if desired. Jontel (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A new book which, in part, deals with the media treatment of Corbyn, has been released this year: "Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief" by Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller, Pluto Press (2019).     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremy Corbyn did not go on a motorbike tour of East Germany

Diane Abbott told the Sunday Times in November 2015 that she and Corbyn never went to East Germany - they went to the South of France (confusion may have arisen because there is a reference to the bike being East German).

See https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-ukipper-in-last-ditch-stand-at-doomed-odeon-a3110046.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-seeks-up-to-pound5000-for-speech-2zdvjrwklh6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoGraffiti (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

After the sentence describing the Chakrabati report, please included the following; The Jewish community, including the Chief Rabbi and Board of Deputies of British Jews were united in calling the Chakrabati Inquiry a "whitewash".

TeaTree 09:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Criticism of the Chakrabarti report is covered in the article on it. There were a series of responses to the report at different times and it would be inappropriate to go into detail in this article on Corbyn. Anyone who is interested will doubtless follow the link to the report or to the article on Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Jontel (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Press tv

He worked for press tv but i think it is deleted Baratiiman (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

He appeared on it several times. It is in the article. Jontel (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Papadopoulos "dinner"

as I see it there is no actual evidence Papadopoulos had dinner with Corbyn. In the photographs there is take-out at Corbyn's side of the table. It's also unlikely that Papadopoulos, a vegan, would be having dinner at a restaurant with no vegan options. I would propose changing it to "having been photographed with Papadopoulos at a restaurant" instead of "having dinner with". --1Veertje (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think if mention it at all we should follow the Times article narrative: "Mr Corbyn was pictured at a restaurant in his constituency of Islington north with Marcus Papadopoulos, a frequent contributor to Russian state television. Mr Papadopoulos said that they had spent the evening together but a Labour spokesman said that Mr Corbyn’s party had been joined only briefly by the controversial journalist."

So we don't know if they had dinner together. Looks like they both dropped in for take-aways and Papadopoulos asked Corbyn to pose for a selfie. It does not seem to be a significant event in Corbyn's life hence should be removed. I note both sources are known Tory newspapers.

TFD (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur that might be better 1Veertje (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Would someone please add the template which says that the subject of the article is involved in a current event and information may change rapidly? There's a similar template at the top of 2019 United Kingdom general election; I'm aware of the desired "change X to Y" format but I can't seem to remember this template's name. 49.36.11.111 (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 49.36.11.111 (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's {{current}}, but I don't think using that template is necessary. This article won't change drastically (it already includes the available current information), and the template is usually just clutter that doesn't aid the reader. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thjarkur I have to disagree... it's true that the article contains much of the recent information, including his resignation, but until a future event the article's subject is the leader of the Labour Party which is undergoing a major event and so it seems appropriate to have that template there. I'll reactivate my request in the hope that another editor can action it. 49.36.11.135 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe {{current}} is applicable here, as per the template guidelines "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". a11ce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  11:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Media coverage of Corbyn has been generally hostile. " - missing source

This claim has no source or citation. It should be removed until there is a reliable source to support this claim. or at least we should ask for a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.182.229.174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.229.174 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. There is an entire section in this article on this issue (section 7) with a number of reliable sources. The assertion can hardly be controversial. Corbyn has been frequently attacked by the Sun, Express, Mail, Times, Telegraph, Spectator, New Statesman and other titles throughout his long career and particularly since becoming leader. Jontel (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, per Dealing with unsourced material, rather than removing unsourced material, it is more constructive to look for and add sources yourself, unless the claims are dubious. TFD (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The claims are dubious. There might be some criticism of him in some of the right-of-centre press, but there is plenty of support for him in the left-of-centre press. I think the whole section needs addressing as it is currently very non-NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also some recent quantitative studies on media coverage of UK parties which support this. E.g. [1]. --MarioGom (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a well-attended (albeit slightly messy) RfC on the claim less than a month ago which found a consensus to include it. So its here to stay for the foreseeable future. A bad call in my opinion, (everyone thinks the media is biased against their favourite politician) but that's life. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are solid sources that support that statement. "everyone thinks the media is biased against their favourite politician" that can be true but objectively the media is in fact biased against Jeremy Corbyn and there are lots of sources that support that.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should check out this study — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Going in circles with references in the leading section

An editor recently requested that we add references at a few points in the lead and provided a reference to wiki policy to support the request. The policy seemed to fit the situation so the relevant references were added. A second editor has now removed these for a reason that I didn't understand and that does not seem to relate to the first editors concerns. Can we make a decision please about whether references are required at the points indicated by the first editor. It has the potential for being a big time-waster. Burrobert (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Corbyn has NEVER referred to himself as a 'democratic socialist'. Please remove this incorrect line from the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.153.203 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the link in the reference leads to a quote from him identifying as a socialist: I've amended the lead. Jontel (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Education

Corbyn gained two A levels at E grade which meant he could not go to University. A Polytechnic at that time did not run degree courses. It would have been national certificate/diploma or Gity & Guilds. At Best he could have got an ONC/OND or City & Guilds as his A level grades would not get him on an HNC/HND course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.110.155 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As the proud owner of a Polytechnic degree I can tell you that your assertion about polys - that it was not possible to study for degrees at them - is wrong. What is true, though, is that degrees were not awarded by the polys themselves but rather by the Council for National Academic Awards, which was abolished in 1992 when the polys were awarded university status, and with it the power to confer degrees themselves. Either way, it's true that Corbyn left NLP with no qualification of any kind, degree or otherwise. MFlet1 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the original commenter was confusing polytechnics with technical colleges. You could do postgraduate research at polytechnics, not just universities, too, the difference being, as you wrote, that the former couldn't confer degrees under their own authority.     ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to back up MFlet1 I did a law degree at a polytechnic, whose postgraduate law courses (for those wishing to be solicitors) was very highly regarded compared to most universities at the time. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Wikieditor19920, you have removed two paragraphs that have been discussed and there are RfCs to include them(1 and 2).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Do not mischaracterize my edits and do not make accusations of POV. I did not remove any paragraphs. WP:TPG. The "media is hostile" line has support in a single source. This is not a widely held view and is WP:UNDUE. What is POV is to preface the significant anti-semitism controversy with a line about him "condemning" anti-semitism. He only did so in response. Two dated discussions that missed the mark on policy do not render the article uneditable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Media hostility is beyond obvious, with many hundreds of articles from most daily papers, and the Media coverage section in the article details a number of studies on it. He condemned antisemitism many times before he was elected leader. Jontel (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I see there are a limited number sources on "hostile media coverage," mostly around election time. I suppose the suggestion is that the coverage is unduly hostile. Regardless, I remain convinced that this is not enough for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the RFCs, I support re-insertion. It looks to me as though Wikieditor19920 broke the 1RR rule with their reverts on the 14 and 15 February.     ←   ZScarpia   17:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, I don't see where the editor broke 1rr. It seems to me that, the argument that the defenders part doesn't make sense was not honest. I am not a native English speaker and yet it makes sense to me. The editor also said that that it is a false balance. I disagree, the content was an appropriate summary of the body of the article which I highly doubt that the editor have looked at it, particularly, this paragraph, Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, and supporting Jewish communal initiatives.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 1RR, I was judging by the edit comments and byte count change. Looking at what I thought was the first revert, I see that it was actually just a re-arrangement, so, you're correct, no breach of 1RR occurred. As far as sourcing goes , I have a copy of "Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief" (2019) by Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller, which will be helpful in moving the debate beyond what the newspapers reported.     ←   ZScarpia   19:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The fixation on "hostile media coverage" seems utterly meaningless and highly POV to me. All Labour leaders get negative press coverage, even Blair was described as a danger to Britain, closet Marxist and so on. JJARichardson (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly the case that all Labour leaders get negative press coverage, particularly around election time. However, most observers would concede that the negative press coverage of Corbyn has been more extended, occurring throughout his time as leader, more personal and more vitriolic. This is not surprising: he is more radical that previous Labour leaders, he was opposed by most Labour MPs and their allies, as well as other parties, unlike previous leaders, and the media could base stories around his 30 years history as a backbencher of supporting causes such as Irish nationalism and Palestinian rights. Jontel (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

This may or may not be true, however it still needs to be reliably sourced and whether a single study not widely reported qualifies under wp:rs is highly doubtful, at best. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This keeps coming up so I have added the sources from the entire section on the subject in the article.

Jamal "allegedly" killed inside the embassy

"Allegedly" is outdated, the Saudis have admitted long ago that Jamal was killed inside the embassy and it is a fact. There is no one denying that Jamal was killed inside the Saudi embassy. See [2] Saudi officials admitted last week that the U.S.-based dissident was killed inside the building.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom Bower biography

Under further reading the biography by Tom Bower is listed. Should this be removed after The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline who serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology for publishing the “grotesque” allegations in the book? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Wikipedia should not be endorsing a source which has been proven to be unreliable. Jontel (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)