Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Objection to Syrian air strikes

We need to say something about Corbyn's objection to air strikes in Syria, particularly as his position on the matter is at odds with most of his parliamentary party. Of importance at this stage would be to mention the parliamentary debate of yesterday and the subsequent letter he sent to his MPs stating that he could not support intervention in Syria. Much has been written on the consequences this could have for the Labour Party, although much of that is speculation, so I don't propose adding any of that. We also need to carefully choose our sources. Any thoughts on this? I'll put something together on here, and we can decide what to do with it later. This is Paul (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is factually accurate to say it is at odds with most of his parliamentary party. There are a number of people in the shadow cabinet who disagree, but the position of the PLP more widely is unknown but likely to be more in line with the views of the members and Corbyn. So much of what is being currently written is speculation and misdirection, I think it would be reasonable to wait and see what, if anything, comes of it all. --ℕ ℱ 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is worth mentioning in a subsection of policies and views since it is an opinion he has expressed, and one he is unlikely to change. But I do agree that we should wait before deciding what to include in the article. This is Paul (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm adding the below text to the section on his leadership of the Labour Party, which seems the most appropriate place for it. Disagreements with his Shadow Cabinet and potentially much of his party certainly warrant inclusion, but we can probably wait until tomorrow to see how that actually manifests itself in votes. Dtellett (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that. Setting aside whatever happens tomorrow the fact he came out openly against military action is now a major political event of his leadership. This is Paul (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Military intervention in Syria

After members of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant carried out the 13 November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris Corbyn suggested that the only way to deal with the threat posed by the jihadist group would be to reach a political settlement aimed at resolving the Syrian Civil War.[1] Prime Minister Cameron sought to build political consensus for UK military intervention against ISIL targets in Syria in the days after the attacks, but speaking at a regional party conference in Bristol on 21 November, Corbyn warned against "external intervention" in Syria. However, he told delegates Labour would "consider the proposals the government brings forward".[2][3]

Cameron set out his case for military intervention during a parliamentary debate on the issue on 26 November, telling MPs that it was the only way to guarantee Britain's safety, and that it would be part of a "comprehensive" strategy to defeat ISIL.[4] Corbyn's shadow cabinet held a meeting immediately following the prime minister's statement in which Corbyn stated that he would continue with efforts "to reach a common view" on Syria, while Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn suggested the case for air strikes was "compelling".[5] Later that evening Corbyn sent a letter to Labour MPs saying that he could not support military action against Islamic State: "The issue [is] whether what the PM is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security ... I do not believe the PM's current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it."[4] However, on 30 November Corbyn announced that Labour MPs would be given a free vote on air strikes.[6]

References

  1. ^ Wilkinson, Michael (16 November 2015). "French air strikes will make little difference, warns Jeremy Corbyn". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
  2. ^ Shahrestani, Vin (21 November 2015). "Jeremy Corbyn on military action against the Islamic State in the wake of recent attacks". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
  3. ^ McTague, Tom (21 November 2015). "David Cameron to unveil plan for air strikes on Isis in Syria within days". The Independent. Independent Print Limited. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
  4. ^ a b "Jeremy Corbyn 'cannot support UK air strikes in Syria'". BBC News. BBC. 26 November 2015. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
  5. ^ Watt, Nicholas; Wintour, Patrick (26 November 2015). "Labour leadership at odds over Syrian airstrikes". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
  6. ^ "Labour MPs to get free vote on Syria". BBC News. BBC. 30 November 2015. Retrieved 30 November 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

To add to the bottom of 'Personal Life' after mentioning favourite Arsenal players..

While attending a London derby between Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal at The Emirates he was approached by a Spurs fan "I'm a Spurs fan Mr Corbyn, you got to be our primeminister you have to be. Corbyn replies "even from a Spurs fan...I'll do my best" [1]

Quotesearch (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done -- let's not be silly... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"The moment of harmony proved to be an isolated one, with Spurs allegedly smashing urinals inside the stadium." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn on foreign conflicts

I added the following text: In 2015, the Huffington Post asked Corbyn to name conflicts other than the Second World War that he thought were justified. Corbyn named the Spanish Civil War, the British naval blockade to stop the slave trade in the 19th century and the role of UN peacekeepers in the 1999 crisis in East Timor

but it was removed as non-encyclopaedic. I can see that it may seem like trivia, but it is important to note that Corbyn is not against all wars as some have suggested. I have clearly not written it well and would welcome suggestions/further discussion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pacificism/Pacifism

‎JJARichardson made an edit saying that Corbyn was a pacificist, someone who supports war only when absolutely necessary. I think most people would agree with this description of Corbyn, given that he has supported certain wars, see section above (and maybe reply as well if you are interested!) However, this is very easily confused with pacifism, which is complete opposition to all wars. I (and User:Bodney) thought this was what had been linked to originally. I don't think it should be in there without an explanation of what pacificism is, which would be difficult in a lead which is already fairly long. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I admit I have just learnt of the term pacificism as opposed to pacifism :) While I agree that the former term would appear to be bang on correct, I also do fear that many readers (& media that taps into Wikipedia) might confuse it for the latter pacifism.-- BOD -- 00:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I decided to include "pacifistic" as I think it is the most accurate and concise way of describing the subtleties within Corbyn's foreign policy views. I respect that it could be confused with pacifism, but surely the very purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and inform rather than be structured to avoid media misinterpretation? JJARichardson (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we have any citations which describe Corbyn's views as "pacifistic"? If not then I really don't think we should describe him as such. Corbyn has expressed many views on foreign policy but it is Original Research to weave these views into a single ethical position. I understand that it useful to use labels to describe people's views, but it may not be so simple in this case. We also can't skirt around the observation that most readers will mistake the term for "pacifism". -- Hazhk (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this comment - if it is not a label which Corbyn himself has accepted, then we should be very reluctant to look to add it here. It is sufficient to describe his views in terms he has expressed - that is quite clear. --ℕ ℱ 19:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that this discussion has resulted in Absolutelypuremilk clarifying Corbyn's non-absolute pacifist position in the foreign policy section. Regarding the length of the lead, I felt the need to expand it slightly as it included no biographical information about Corbyn's early life or his long parliamentary career, which to me made for incomplete reading. JJARichardson (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Hamas and Hezbollah

Per the consensus reached on this discussion thread, I have included Corbyn's comments on Hamas and Hezbollah, and on British policy towards the former, which were previously missing from the section on Middle East foreign policy. The comments were initially included in September, but were later removed due to objections over the source. Therefore, I have reincorporated the comments with another source, though my edits were just reverted by ‎Nomoskedasticity. I would appreciate a clarification as to why this cited text was removed-- is there an objection to using Foreign Policy magazine as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1857 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for the change at the archive page ----Snowded TALK 19:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Corbyn ... supports the introduction of a £10 living wage[85]" -- the link is broken.

it is http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/story_n_8138900.html John McDonnell Unveils His First Policy: A £10 Minimum Wage - I replaced it, it does appear to be general policy Govindaharihari (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This is very unclear. Typically "living wage" and "minimum wage" are different things - I have altered the wording to reflect the above source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

Question

talkpage is not for general discussion of the topic --ℕ ℱ 02:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

I'm an American, but just out of curiosity, why is Corbyn a controversial figure? I've heard that some members of Parliament don't like him. Why? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a chat page - sorry, google your question and make up your own opinion, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Or try asking at WP:REFDESK. This is Paul (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
For the same reason all politicians are "controversial" in pretty much every nation in which they exist. Collect (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Um... not really. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
This tells you most of what you need to know. Ericoides (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
From a historical perspective, this might be a good place to start. On another note, there is probably scope for a Criticism of Jeremy Corbyn article, though it's early days. I see the phrase Corbynism also gets used a lot so maybe that's the way to go, including a section discussing its pros and cons. How good it is I don't know, but perhaps the answer to this question might be found in the book Jeremy Corbyn: Accidental Hero. This is Paul (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A Corbynism article might be a decent idea though we have the overlapping Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, already. A criticism article sounds like the sort of POV fork that should be avoided. There's no reason why the level of press hostility to Corbyn and reasons for his differences with the Parliamentary Labour Party (more to do with perceptions of his competence, foreign policy preoccupations and perceived unwillingness to compromise to win elections than "Red Scare" tbh.) can't be discussed in the main article providing it's very carefully worded. Dtellett (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Just discovered the Political positions article so did a Corbynism redirect for now, as per Cameronism which redirects to Political positions of David Cameron. Also notice that Criticism articles tend to redirect to Public image of, such as Public image of Barack Obama. Corbyn could be high profile enough for something like that, although I wouldn't want to start it myself. This is Paul (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I presume that Dtellett you deleted my comment by accident, I have repeated it below.
I would also like to add, he is obviously only controversial because some sources publicly say he is. Among those sources who do say he is with most noise are the Press. Have a look at the Orientation and 2015 Political Party Support columns for the the UK Broadsheets and Tabloids by visiting List of newspapers in the United Kingdom. Any Newspaper that is Right, Centerist, Liberal. Neoliberal, Conservative or UKIP and even Labour (because Labour is a party of many factions including Blairites) ... which are most of them ... are the ones most likely spread doubt, controversy and fear regarding someone who challenges their political views.-- BOD -- 20:20, 1 February 2016 (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.

Country in infobox

I removed 'United Kingdom' in the infobox, replacing it with the more specific and equally correct 'England'. Two users, Nomoskedasticity and Nonsenseferret, have now removed any reference to a country at all, claiming that it should be 'UK or nothing'. Why? Zacwill (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove UK? "More specific" wasn't a good reason, imo. Is it an ideological thing? (For me it isn't -- I didn't replace UK, I just left out the country until something could be agreed.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, most people would say UK when asked their country of birth/residence Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is simply to do with the geographical location of Wiltshire - it is not to do with his nationality or the guidance at WP:UKNATIONALS. Wiltshire is in England. His nationality is British (or UK), but what this concerns is his birthplace - which is, as a matter of simple and undeniable fact, within England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure -- but it's no less true that his birthplace is in the UK. Why is this such a big deal? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with either UK or England, but it's nonsensical to have neither. England is more specific, and before he became Leader his infobox said England. There is no good (that is, non-political) reason to depart from that now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
England is a political choice here. It should clearly neutrally describe the state as UK just like David Cameron and many many other articles do. --ℕ ℱ 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If anything, 'UK' is the political choice. England is a geographical region, whereas the United Kingdom is a political nation state. Zacwill (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Ghmyrtle. Don't see why it has to be cast as "a political choice". In fact, as I'm pretty sure Ghmyrtle had no intention to make a political choice, how exactly can this be misconstrued as a political choice? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly favour having the country as UK, especially for a UK-wide politician. Wiltshire is undeniably in the UK. It's also clear that a lot of nationalistic and activist editors are seeking to remove all references to the UK from Wikipedia and replace everything with "England" and "English". AusLondonder (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's the other way round actually. Fifty years ago, it wouldn't have been remotely controversial to describe English things as English, but now everything has to be 'British'. Zacwill (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue may be simply a matter of choosing either "normal postal usage" for address of birth, or "nation where nation may not be a normal postal usage". More to the point, most people speak of "London, England" than speak of "London, UK" it would appear. I do know that telling someone they were born in "Glasgow, UK" might well result in an impact being felt upon your nose. There is a quite noticeable amount in pride of individual country within the UK. To that end, I suggest we use "England" (or "Scotland" or "Ireland" or "Wales" or "Man") where the person specifically refers to himself or herself as "English" (etc.) and "UK" where they evince no such national identification personally. Collect (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If User:Collect is right in suggesting UK as a default, why did you undo my edit, User:John? Especially given UK was there in the first place and changed by another editor.... AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The best rule is "don't mess with it". See this revision. --John (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, much nice picture there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
But don't mess with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to the old picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It's up to John, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, quite. He was also born in England. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
He's the Opposition leader in the UK Parliament, so use the United Kingdom as his birth country. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, concerning this topic, there's inconsistency across the infoboxes of the UK opposition leaders, who've never been prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The inconsistency is enshrined and is well summed up in the essay I already mentioned, which specifically cautions against well-meaning attempts to enforce "consistency". Nothing good will come of it. --John (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I've no intentions of changing this infobox's birth-country entry. That'll be up to other editors here to decide. I do recommend that the United Kingdom be added to all the infoboxes of UK opposition leaders, however. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with John that trying to enforce uniformity or consistency always ends in tears. Whatever it originally said, leave it at that. If I had a preference, it would be UK per GoodDay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn's place of birth should remain as Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, per normal use. Daicaregos (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To be helpful I to some extent agree with both User:Collect and GoodDay (I personally use the UK not England, as my birth nation), However David Cameron's page says ... Born David William Donald Cameron ... (snip) ...Marylebone, London, United Kingdom ... surely Corbyn as the Opposition leader in the of the same UK Parliament... it should be the same. -- BOD -- 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
… and Winston Churchill's page has his pob as Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England. As has been noted above, there is no standard format. Also, the notion that infoboxes of politicians in the UK Parliament should have United Kingdom in their place of birth because it is the UK Parliament is a false analogy. Firstly, the articles are about the person, not the office. Secondly, the offices of head of government in many sovereign states have eligibility criteria that include a requirement to have been born in that state. The office of UK Prime Minister is not limited to those born in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
We should also use United Kingdom for all the Prime Ministers aswell. Of course, this is a decision to be made by others. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? What is the reason you think we should use UK? Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually for those born before the 1800 Act of Union, we'd use Great Britain. Seeing as they were Prime Minister of Great Britain, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? we should use the respective sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no we wouldn't. Still unanswered though. Why do you want to use UK and not England? Do you have a valid reason? Daicaregos (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Corbyn is Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not the Parliament of England. Note, the latter doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
How is that remotely relevant to how we describe his place of birth? Clue: it isn't. We are not discussing his nationality. We are discussing how best to describe the location of Wiltshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's in the UK, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course. No-one suggests that UK is wrong. It's just that using England as the country name is more precise, and therefore better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
To Daicaregoes & Ghmyrtle. It's not up to me, as to what gets added, deleted or replaced. It's best to allow others to weigh in. PS - We can delete Wiltshire, if it's that troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


RfC: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK?

The RfC resulted in a no consensus answer to the question as worded. Other proposals made or mentioned during the discussion did not receive sufficient comment. Although more RfC(s) may be needed before a consensus can be declared on a specific wording or compromise solution, participants are encouraged to continue to discuss and explore specifically worded compromise solutions(s) (such as a combination of "UK" and "England") which make a sincere effort to both reduce the divisiveness on the issue, and reach an achievable consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

  • Question: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK? 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

¡Votes

Well, the version I viewed earlier on just before I posted said United Kingdom, so I can't help thinking it was changed to England just to support your argument. I'm going to change it back since I doubt it was done with consensus. This is Paul (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it. This is Paul (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, great. We just now need to check the infoboxes for all UK politicians, to find earliest form. And whatever the earliest one was, wins! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The nearest thing to an 'official' bio that I can find is provided by MyParliament.info "..born Jeremy Bernard Corbyn on 26 May 1949 in England.." --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At least Red Dwarf had a theme tune, unlike England yet. --ℕ ℱ 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Lol. A little harsh though, he's 5' 10" apparently, hardly an oompah-loompah! --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • England - It is more specific. Support for adding UK is not strong enough. Why be generic? Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • UK / United Kingdom I strongly favour having the country (ie sovereign state) listed in the infobox. It is standard. The UK is a unitary state. Can you imagine US bios saying Born: "Houston, Texas"? Nationalism is a primary motivating factor here. Individuals born in the Soviet Union, almost without exception, list the country as Soviet Union. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • England - per Martinevans123 above. Giving Corbyn's pob as 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' provides the reader with more information than 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, United Kingdom'.
...And less than 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' Wykx 11:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
... and less than 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, The Earth, etc'. 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' is enough - the rest redundant. Daicaregos (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I must be one of those people who "still don't know that England is not a part of the UK". Would you care to rephrase? Daicaregos (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
UGH. That's what I get for not reading through what I type. Thanks for the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Didn't think it was what you meant ... but you never know. Daicaregos (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • United Kingdom or simply UK: There is no need to specify England IMO, and even if there were, "England, UK" is too obtuse. Please get this sorted out some time soon as this is petty and often disruptive to other editors of the article. As mentioned before, if people don't know where Wiltshire is, they are free to click on that link. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • England. As per "city, administrative region, country" stated in the parameter explanation (Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Chippenham is the city/town. Wiltshire is the administrative region (see Subdivisions of England). England is the country (the sovereign state of the UK is made up of four countries, which is weird but true). As such, it should be Chippenham, Wiltshire, England. I have added the "citizenship = United Kingdom" parameter to clarify things; it also helpfully appears under his place of birth. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the citizenship = United Kingdom parameter, as this Rfc is still in progress. Stick around though, your idea just might take hold. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Let us imagine the audience for this article. Those who know who Corbyn is will know he is British, the rest will read the first line of the article, and discover that. There is really only any point stating his "sovereign state of birth" if it is outside the the United Kingdom. Now since we have already stated he was born in Chippenham in Wiltshire, and it is a given that it is in the United Kingdom, all we have to decide is whether or not to add "England" to Wilts. I would say not, because "Chippenham, Wilts" is enough, and the exact location of Wiltshire, for those who are ignorant of it and wish to know, is available by clicking on it. Therefore:
  • Neither but if you must England and definitely not both!. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
  • England per Gaia Octavia Agrippa's reasoning. Would also support "citizenship = United Kingdom" parameter being added. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Chippenham, England - It is more descriptive. I don't see why we would use anything but this option, as it is exactly his place of birth. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Comatmebro - How could leaving the country (sovereign state) out be more descriptive? Also, his birthplace is exactly the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It doesn't matter hugely whether England or UK is used, because the default assumption when UK is mentioned is that the reference is to England. We don't need to point it out specifically when someone comes from Metropolitan France - it is inferred from "France" - but if they come from French Guyana it is worth drawing attention to.GideonF (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe not "hugely", but yes it certainly does matter, because that is a very wrong assumption. France and its overseas territories is in no way comparable here. An encyclopedia should not have to compromise accuracy just to accommodate the supposed ignorance of its readers regarding UK geography. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is a particularly wrong assumption. If someone is referring to a part of the UK outside England they will pretty much always specify. No-one would say Glasgow, UK.GideonF (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you speaking generally, or just in the context of Wikipedia politician bio infoboxes? I think it will always depend on context. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Both.GideonF (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Chippenham, England - Personally I prefer UK but looking at a few articles it seems we go with England instead of UK so for consistency we should probably go with England here. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Davey2010 - that isn't exactly right. Tony Blair: Scotland, UK. Gordon Brown: Scotland, UK. Iain Duncan Smith: UK. Michael Howard: UK. Many others. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Concur with AusLondonder. There are many of these particular bios' that use the United Kingdom. I wish all of them were consistent. But past experiences in these areas, tells me that there'd be a massive struggle to achieve that end. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • England - we have had these arguments before on many articles particularly whith mass changing from one to the other and the consensus I believed in these matters was just leave it alone as either is correct and I understand that it has been England in this article first. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It has been consistent at UK for some months. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK I'm very much of the opinion for this sort of thing that more is more. Who is this information useful to? Someone who doesn't know where Corbyn is from. If they know where Chippenham is then no more info will help them, but you need Wiltshire to distinguish the two Chippenhams. That said many readers won't know where Wiltshire is so it's worth saying it's in the UK. However, people also care which bit of the UK people are from, if you didn't know where Wiltshire was you wouldn't know which country it was in. So all four is the best answer. I shorten United Kingdom to UK in order to save some space in the infobox. SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, U.K. the only people that care about this is nationalist editors that dislike the UK. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I tend to be of the opinion that whatever country the article stated originally is the one that should stand. I note that David Cameron's birthplace is in the United Kingdom, but Ed Miliband's is in England. We need to develop a consensus on how to present the information as the argument about the UK and her constituent countries is one oft visited. This is Paul (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first time a country of birth was mentioned in the infobox was here in 2010 - England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know, we'll never get a consensus to use United Kingdom across all British bio articles infoboxes. It's likely that these things will need to be handled article-by-article. IMHO, we should use 'United Kingdom' here. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a good point, particularly when it comes to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am tempted to suggest we could use UK since we're talking about a politician at UK level, but again that couldn't be applied to everyone in the Commons, Alex Salmond for example, who is a member of the UK's third largest parliamentary party, but who would regard himself as having been born in Scotland rather than the UK. This is Paul (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd have Salmond's birthplace changed to 'United Kingdom', aswell. Now that he's a member of the British Parliament. But, that's a discussion for that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Definitely agree with that. This is Paul (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A quick head count of recent prime ministers. According to us, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were born in Scotland, United Kingdom, John Major was born in England, and Margaret Thatcher was born in United Kingdom. I haven't checked other opposition leaders, but no doubt the results would be just as divided. This is Paul (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The British prime ministers should also have the United Kingdom or Great Britain (pre/post-1800/01) included in their infoboxes aswell. Again, this would likely require an article-by-article approach. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At the moment the votes are 8 for the united kingdom, 6 for England, voting has been open for about 4 days. How much more time is it reasonable for the voting to take place. Can we suggest a cut off date? ( sorry my pad is not letting me sign atm)

As per WP:CON, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. At the moment, I think we have thoughts about England being more informative/specific and UK being the sovereign state. That's why I proposed a consensus which could be 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' Wykx 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well of course you'd say that. But please don't take us for fools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Um - was that comment of any value at all to improving the article? Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are England and UK excluding one from the other? Wykx 13:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
We are possibly in danger of creating a mountain out of of a mole hill, so I agree with Wykx why not compromise with 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' -- BOD -- 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it's longer, and unnecessary. Either England or UK is better. The unresolved issue is which one is best, in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The onus in this discussion is for those who support changing the existing use of "England" to "UK" to identify why, in terms of WP policies and guidance, that change is preferable or necessary. While !voting can help identify arguments to resolve the issue, it is not the answer in itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The single strongest argument for listing precise political subdivisions is that the same place name may be found in multiple such divisions. Addressing a postcard to someone in "Springfield. USA" is guaranteed not to reach its destination. Several place names are found in multiple UK locations - vide "Broughton" (lots), "Richmond", and at least two "Chippenhams" in England alone. Using "UK" alone after such place names is a clear disservice to readers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no Chippenhams in Wales, Scotland or NI (as far as I know), so how does putting England rather than UK help here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It is clear that postal subdivision should be used as a rule - in the case at hand, postal county. The point, moreover, is that "UK" is insufficient in too many cases. Collect (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
And there is a "Chippenham Park" (various names) in Monmouth, Wales <g>. To further show the likelihood that "full place name" may be useful at times. Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The notion (posed above) that a reader wanting more information on Jeremy Corbyn may not know either where England is or that it is part of the United Kingdom seems more than a little far fetched. Readers are far less likely to know where Chippenham is in the UK without being told it is in England, which really is the point of the infobox being informative.Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, if no decision is reached on which to use (England or United Kingdom), we always have the option of using both. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

...which, as I said, is worse than either of the other two alternatives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Why exactly is 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' worse? It satisfies the arguments of two groups of editors who are unable to agree whether england or the united kingdom is correct; it does not duplicate, contradict & it is only a tiny bit longer.-- BOD -- 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It is redundant. Those of us who don't care (much) whether we have England or United Kingdom don't want to see "England, United Kingdom". (What I would prefer is "Chippenham, Wiltshire".) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

In many Canadian & American bio infoboxes, 'Canada' & 'United States' are omitted. So seeing British bio infoboxes omit 'United Kingdom', isn't overly shocking. However, I still prefer we add the United Kingdom here, per reasons already mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are the criteria for deciding if they need one? I see Sarah has one, but Donald does not. Or are you just saying "random inconsistency is fine (as long as it's not overly shocking)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If I had it my way, Canada, United States & United Kingdom would be added to all the Canadian (post-1867), American (post-1776) & British bios (post-1801), respectively. For the British bio infoboxes (1714-1800), we'd use Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you open an RfC and gain consensus, I guess you could have your way. Not sure where that RfC would be best placed, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Such an Rfc, would never succeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if we could adopt United Kingdom/Great Britain to all the infoboxes of the British Prime Ministers & British Leaders of the Opposition. But, I highly doubt that will ever succeed. Though there's resistence to replacing or adding to 'England' entry at this article's bio? The resistence would likely be much stronger at those infoboxes which have either 'Wales', 'Scotland' or 'Northern Ireland' / 'Ireland' (pre-1920's). GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It might be Great and maybe we could all be United. But I doubt it too. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
England Gaia's reasoning seems sound to me. Plus "England" is the more widely understood term. Edwardx (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the two terms mean different things, the idea that one might be more widely understood than the other is not relevant. I doubt that either is particularly well understood outside the UK anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen a good argument from anyone for leaving any part of the information out. Town, County, Country State (shortened to UK to avoid excess space in the infobox.SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Why not give simple and full information. So far the only argument against Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, U.K. is the word "redundant". Redundant for whom? It may not be redundant for everyone. How much does that really matter. Plus it satisfies both the reasoned arguments here for England and/or the U.K. Why does it have to be one or the other? -- BOD -- 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Time to meet each other half-ways. I have no problems with using both England & the UK, together. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This Rfc has been open for just about a full month now. Does anyone agree with the compromise? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And the result of the judges's decision is .....-- BOD -- 00:05, 12 February 2016 (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.

Original RfC Closure by participant

This RfC was closed with a compromise which is "Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK" Wykx (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Close review

Just a note to advise editors that a closure review request has been made with respect to the RfC above. Daicaregos (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've overturned the original closure of the RfC and reclosed here as an uninvolved user. Although it was highly ill-advised for the involved participant to close it and the closure did not reflect a consensus reached at this particular RfC, the compromise may be a good proposal to start with, even as a temporary compromise while discussion continues (as it ought to). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anybody interested in opening up an Rfc on the proposed compromise? Or could we try for a local consensus? GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that was a good close? Daicaregos (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
It's best not to venture into the area of why individuals prefer this or that. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave things as they stand, if someone objects or changes the info box, we could have a four way RfC .. just Chippenham UK, just Chippenham England, just Chippenham or Chippenham England UK. I think that covers all suggestions.-- BOD -- 22:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
How exciting. Can we have proportional representation based on number of edits? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
AFAICT only four editors noted favouring excluding the county and/or a country. A four way RfC would guarantee a 'no consensus' close again, in which case we would return to the default of Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, the first time a country was noted in the infobox. Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK has failed to achieve consensus and would undoubtedly fail again. We are left with the options of Chippenham, Wiltshire, England and Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK. I will set out a new RfC on that basis. Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see you're setting up the dispute that will follow if there's another no consensus. In reality-land, the "first time" is not a consensus version, and we won't default to that. If there's no consensus (because one "side" rejects a reasonable compromise), then the dispute will persist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The picture...

I'm sorry to bring this up AGAIN, but that picture is awful. I know it's not a place for opinion and a picture is a picture etc etc etc, but the colours and the murkiness is absolutely abysmal, there must SURELY be better, free alternatives by now? Literally all of the other leaders have clear, and colour corrected pictures. Could someone with photoshop skills maybe edit it and correct the colours a bit so it isn't as dire if there's still no free alternative? Thanks Nbdelboy (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:CorbynGJN.png
Jeremy Corbyn
To me the awfulness of the current pic is so bad, that it looks like it is done on purpose. It needs to be replaced ASAP. Anyways here is a quick and unskilled edit of creative commons pic I found on flicker.-- BOD -- 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This would be a great improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the alternative here is awful. I don't love the current one, but this isn't an improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This one is a lot more natural, and without the strange photo effects.-- BOD -- 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree this would be an improvement. Not great, but less bad than the current one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this would be an adequate replacement albeit only temporarily. The current picture does look intentionally awful, and really should be replaced with this one for the time being. I agree it's not the best replacement, but the improvement over the current picture outweighs its negatives. Thanks for the contribution @Bodney: Nbdelboy (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree also - I will insert it as there is a good support here for that. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Govindaharihari: Nbdelboy (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem, four supports and one against in five days of open chat seems a reasonable point to change the consensus. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I also dislike the previous image and prefer the new one, but as discussed previously the Global Justice Now image appears to be a screengrab from a Channel 4 interview. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. JMiall₰ 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The pic was edited and suggested in good faith, based on its Creative Commons License. I was unable to find any reference to it or Global Justice Now in this page's Archives. I am interested to know what tool you used to spot that this pic was a potential screen grab of a TV interview.-- BOD -- 14:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned briefly in archive 1 from September. I found it was a copyvio by seeing that Global Justice Now mentioned a Channel 4 interview and then watching that video. There are lots of videos and images around of Corbyn on Flickr/Youtube etc that are tagged wrongly so it is worth being suspicious. JMiall₰ 15:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the image there are areas which are very blurred, this is typical of the poor quality image you get from a screen capture of a compressed video, that in itself would flag up that it is likely copyvio. --ℕ ℱ 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you possibly point these areas out to those of us who don't have eyes like Sherlock Holmes? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Compare the relative clarity of his right (our left) eye to the whole area around the outside of his left (our right) eye, including the end of his eyebrow. You might find Compression artifact as a description of what is going on. --ℕ ℱ 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, even at fully screen, it looks to me like it could be a still photo. Yes, the left side of his face is in shadow. You obviously have a trained eye. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Very trained. Sad we will prob have to go back to the awful pic. If we do I will try to contact Corbyn's office. -- BOD -- 23:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, do. He needs to get that wonky left eye looked at pronto. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
GIMP it straight using the right eye.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey!! Who're you calling a gimp?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another option

The Weekly Bull has a shot of Jeremy Corbyn arriving at the Refugees Welcome Here demo - London 12 Sept 2015. It is sharable for non-commercial but not remixable (not sure if cropping constitutes a remix). Or we could ask them permission? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a good image. The restrictions say "remix, transform, or build upon". I would have thought that "transform" might include cropping. But there must be some general CC-license guidelines which explain these terms? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice image but we cant use non-free images so I have removed it, the image is not free enough to use on wikipedia as the source shows a non-commerical licence it will probably be deleted from commons soon. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody send Jezza a selfie-stick and a £5 donation? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Email Corbyn Campaign?

The only good resolution to the awful image would be for more shareable images to become available. It's in Corbyn's best interest that a decent image of himself is made available. I tried e-mailing the Corbyn office, but got no response. Perhaps if we spam e-mail them we might get something back? I think the right e-mail is "leader@labour.org.uk". NickCT (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Get something back?? Perhaps a musical tribute? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: - I was thinking more a response with an image, but a musical tribute would be nice. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Like others I guess, I have once again (only 2 days ago) tried emailing leader@labour.org.uk with a request, no reply so far. Will try again.-- BOD -- 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bodney: - Thanks mate! NickCT (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's likely that's a rarely checked email, or used for certain things only. It would be better to use his MPs email address on the HoC website, or his constituency site, or to even try messaging his Facebook page. Hope this helps!! Nbdelboy (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Do Facebook images come with copyright statements? Maybe we'll end up emailing Mark Zuckerberg? After all, he is "Probably the best leader in the world"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nbdelboy: - Thanks. I hesitated to use "jeremy.corbyn.mp@parliament.uk" b/c most of the sites offering it say it's only for members of his constituency. I just shot him a tweet. Maybe some re-tweets would help? NickCT (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: - I'm not an expert on image copyrights, but from what I've read I don't think you can just pull images from Facebook. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick, that's very useful info. Thanks for linking. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Obama will meet Corbyn in April when he visits UK..we can get a good picture then..--Stemoc 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone had any luck at all regarding a temporary picture we could use, or any information back from the Corbyn/Labour leadership team? If not, lets hope something happens re @Stemoc:'s suggestion. I'm not too hot on licensing and what's allowed on wiki re photos, but had a hunt around and found these 1 2, I know they aren't perfect, but would one be a decent placeholder (if they're useable) until something better becomes available? Cheers, Nbdelboy (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
At about the size of the current infobox image

A few images of Corbyn at the Stop Trident demo have appeared on Flickr although none are perfect. I prefer this one to the current pink infobox image when it is at the same size. It's a shame Tariq Ali was hanging around in the background. JMiall₰ 13:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Much better than the current photo, even with Tariq; and shows better Corbyn's campaigning persona -- BOD -- 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree also. Not perfect, but much better. Nbdelboy (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's face it, he's been hanging around in the background for the past 50 years... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've switched the image over. JMiall₰ 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure about the licence on this one - it is definitely another screenshot of a high-def video? --ℕ ℱ 22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"These Corbyn pics are actually captured from 1080p video." But doesn't say who's. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Or, indeed, whose ;) --ℕ ℱ 23:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this is worse than before - it may capture his personality, but he is also the leader of HM Opposition, and should be given a more professional picture to honour that. VelvetCommuter (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I saw this pic on flickr a few weeks ago and completely ignored it..firstly its from a video and not an actual picture and we cannot be sure of the actual licence for it as well..and since its a video, the quality is more a .png than a .jpg thus more of a still that a picture and not appropriate for his infobox..--Stemoc 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, the current picture is far more representative of the subject than the previous very artificial looking picture.-- BOD -- 00:20, 21 March 2016 (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wealth

Would others agree that it is relevant, particularly given his political views, to record that he is a wealthy man by most people's standards? According to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyns-3million-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/ he has a pension worth £1.6 million and lives in a house worth £600000, in addition to an income of over £75000 per year. So he is a millionaire and has an annual income which is about three times the national average for full-time employed workers. 92.29.117.56 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to add that you think he's a hypocrite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It has been noted in a secondary source, and similar notes exist in both David_Cameron#Inheritance_and_family_wealth and George_Osborne#Personal_life. A quick sentence would be fine, but I think trying to imply that he is a hypocrite because he is wealthy and a socialist would be WP:OR, and even if it had been covered by a couple of sources, should probably stay out. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This suggestion addition is perfumed with political bias, like the Tory News source it came from. Just because its the Telegraph does not mean its a good source. The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 according to the Land Registry House Price Index ... so he is near average there, so not notable at all. He receives the basic annual salary for an MP, which is from 1 April 2016 is £74,962, which is normal. It has been noted that he claims the lowest expenses of any MP. He will get a work pension, he is entitled to, like millions of other workers, based on many 30 years service. Nothing of any value to add to the article -- BOD -- 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I propose an addition of "As an MP for over 33 years, Corbyn has built up a pension pot of around £1.6 million.[1]" No comment on his views, no mention of his housing or MPs salary and no claiming that he is a hypocrite. Would this be objectionable to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs)
Yes. It's a factoid that doesn't add value, except via implication of some sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
If his pension fund was being managed by Panamanian Blairmore Holdings Inc, things might be different. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
He's a socialist, not a Maoist. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Perfumed? ooh yes, Eau de Solidarité Française, I bet. And don't forget that un-named lodger who brought in up to £4,249.99 last year!!! Maybe we can get all MP's info-boxes to include a drop-down image of last year's tax returns?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

His total wealth is sufficient to put him in the top 1% of the UK, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wealth Am I wrong in thinking that one of the pillars of socialism is not owning personal property, so all socialists should rent their homes preferably from the state. In addition his wife is a successful businesswoman. 92.24.191.28 (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong in your definition of socialism. You're also wrong about where Corbyn falls in the wealth distribution. The figures you link to pertain to marketable wealth, which by definition excludes occupational pensions (as these cannot be bought/sold). Thanks for playing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
92.29.117.56 You significantly misunderstand socialism. Simply Socialism is not anti wealth. If you have an political axe to grind, its melting to your fingers.-- BOD -- 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Pension funds are invested in shares, bonds, investment trusts etc, which are categorised as marketable wealth. In addition recent legislation means that the pension holder could cash in their pension if they wish, although I do not recall if now 100% can be cashed in or just some proportion. This ability seems to me to make a pension marketable wealth as well. On the second point, you imply that socialists can own property yet still be socialists. But the Socialism and Private property articles say that socialists are opposed to the ownership of property, saying instead that property should only be held by worker's cooperatives or the state. . 92.24.191.28 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're possibly in over your head here. There are different types of property as treated in Marxist theory -- in particular, personal vs. private. Quite pertinent here. As for pensions: www.blacksacademy.net/content/3047.html. Bottom line here: your proposed edit lacks WP:CONSENSUS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes the full potential value of a pension is realised only if the pensioner survives. If Corbyn doesn’t (or can’t) cash it in early, and he pops his socialist clogs before retirement age, his wife will probably benefit from a spouse’s lump sum. But poor Jezza himself will never see a penny of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. and I doubt that the Corbyn family is very high on the list for a council house tenancy in Finsbury Park?
92.29.117.56 Again Simply ...Socialism is not against Private Property. Socialism maybe critical of unchecked and unbalanced wealth, it may support fairer more equal society but no where does it seek to banish wealth or oppose that some people might be better of than others.-- BOD -- 10:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This whole debate is ridiculous, and reminds me a bit of a former acquaintance who, when he saw me using an ATM and knowing my political views, said: "Ah, I see you're not too socialist to have a bank account." Jeremy Corbyn has been a member of the Labour Party for about 50 years and currently rejoices in the title of "Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition", not to mention that he named one of his pet cats Harold Wilson. None of this points to someone who could be classed as a fundamentalist ideologue. MFlet1 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Support adding the cat. Is it a bit smokey? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
After looking it up on the internet, and considering his age which appears to make him above retirement age, then he could cash in 100% of his pension pot now or at any time if he wished. So I think it is fair to add it to his total marketable wealth. Sorry I cannot believe that socialism allows the ownership of private land or property. After the Russian Revolution, even the small peasant farmers lost their property and were punished for having had it. People in the USSR did not own their homes. You cannot claim that Soviet socialism was not really socialism, or start splitting hairs over abstruse varieties of theoretical socialism. If we had a socialist revolution in the UK, then Mr. Corbyn would lose ownership of his home. 92.24.191.28 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
But that kind of Socialism was spelled with a capital C, wasn't it? I don't think Corbyn's is one of the "abstruse varieties of theoretical socialism", is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It was the USSR, not the USCR. Before the fall of the wall, a Russian university student explained to me that they only had a socialist economy as they had not yet reached their goal of communism. The Wikipedia articles about the Russian revolution use the word socialism far more than the word communism. The Americans usually described the former Russian or USSR way of life as socialism. 92.24.180.162 (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest The Americans were usually wrong. What has this got to do with the amount of money that Corbyn has in the bank? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you may be being disingenuous, but the point is, can you be a committed and actual socialist and at the same time still be more than a millionaire, own property or even very expensive property, and have an income around three times the average for full-time workers and presumably several times the average income? This was explored in Animal Farm. 92.24.180.162 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
And I think you maybe flogging a dead horse. But yes, apparently he can be, as he was elected leader of the UK Labour Party. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. the "ref-talk" template goes at the bottom OK?
(edit conflict) A similar question could be asked of Christians, but that would also be irrelevant. This has descended to the scope of WP:FORUM. Consensus appears to be against adding further information on Corbyn's personal finances and what he could/should do with it is against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Please read WP:BLP. Daicaregos (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hence the origin of that well-known rhetorical expression: "Is the Pope a socialist? Do bears have offshore tax havens?" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyns-3million-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_6&oldid=1136840634"