Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeremy Corbyn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Jeremy Corbyn was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 15, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Labour files leak
editSo, why is there nothing on here about the Labour files leak? The smears on Corbyn were shown to be a made-up, co-ordinated attack on him. To be added in due course Apeholder (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Apeholder, can you cite references referring to them? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Unprecedented leak exposes inner workings of UK Labour Party". www.aljazeera.com. 23 September 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "Documents reveal discrimination and racism in UK Labour Party". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "The Labour Files: where is the outrage, where is the action?". Morning Star. 14 October 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "'The Labour Files' exposes a toxic right-wing culture poisoning our party". The Independent. 9 October 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "Al Jazeera's Labour Files has blown a hole in the British media's Corbyn narrative". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "The Labour Files TV review: A bunch of dull talking heads and no new information". www.thejc.com. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "Mass Media Omertà: Burying Al Jazeera's 'The Labour Files'". Media Lens. 5 October 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "The Labour Files: Documents reveal campaign against ex-leader - The Global Herald". Global Herald. 25 September 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "The Labour Files". Top Documentary Films. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "The Labour Files all in one place". Dorset Eye. 27 September 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- ^ "Al Jazeera – The Labour Files". JVL. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
- @Burrobert, plenty there for editors to get their teeth into, thanks for all those. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised the Labour Files and Forde Report don't have wiki articles yet tbh. ---- G-13114 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- They are probably not mentioned because they have had little mainstream media attention. I won't question why the media found the allegations noteworthy enough to report in detail but have ignored the leaked documents. You are welcome of course to add information.
- I'm always reticent to include investigative journalism that has not been picked up by other sources, which is why I did not add anything.
- There should be better coverage of the documents in academic writing some time in the future. TFD (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces Since when does the justification for something to be added to WP rely on whether or not the MSM has covered it. Is WP just an echo chamber for what the mainstream are covering? Apeholder (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- See Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I agree that makes Wikipedia an echo chamber, but that's the intention. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- To avoid doubt, is not the Forde Report considered reliable, published material? Also, was not the leaked Labour Report a media story of some public interest? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- See Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I agree that makes Wikipedia an echo chamber, but that's the intention. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces Since when does the justification for something to be added to WP rely on whether or not the MSM has covered it. Is WP just an echo chamber for what the mainstream are covering? Apeholder (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Father
editSources come up online for his mother being a maths teacher, and for his father being an engineer (for GEC); nothing seems to come up with relation to his being an expert in power rectifiers. Where did this come from?
Independent Candidacy
editI know it’s somewhat ongoing but given how much media attention has been paid, I think we ought to at least try add something on Corbyn’s candidacy (apologies if this message comes off as rude, I’m quite inexperienced so my wikipedia etiquette may be lacking) Oldboad (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
college?
editwith two A levels at grade E how did he go to college? He failed to graduate? Something not right here. 89.243.48.130 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's entirely plausible (and backed up by sources) that he was admitted on to his course with those grades. North London Poly is not Oxford or Cambridge. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I got two Es at "A" level. I was admitted to University of London, Bedford College, to study philosophy. This was long before the grade-inflation that has resulted in anything less than four A++'s being considered a waste of exam fees. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Could someone clarify why he was not permitted to stand as a candidate?
editCurrently the article mentions that he had unanimous support from the local Constituency Labour Party. According to this article of Brevia Consulting (relatively well known among those in government) all that is then needed is for a local husting to confirm who gets selected out of a shortlist compiled by the CLP. (https://www.brevia.co.uk/news/politics/how-are-parliamentary-candidates-selected/)
But if that didn't happen, at what stage and how was he not permitted to stand? I could email him and ask myself but since Wikipedia prefers secondary sources perhaps someone who better understands UK politics could look into it? Cheers 46.162.86.84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Clarification on lede
edit@Roger 8 Roger Apologies if the wording itself is grammatically incorrect, I thought that it was being changed to a past tense due to uncertainty of his status as an MP. English is indeed not my first language. Nontheless, doesn’t “has served as” imply the individual is not currently serving as but had done so? If so, is there a way to appropriately reword this in a grammatically correct way,
Respectfully, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'has served as' is a present perfect tense. That means it is about something that exists now (present time) (he IS an MP) following from a fixed past time, ie 1983, (ie since 1983).. and that state of being an MP continued from 1883 till now. The word 'since' means that is the starting point of actions in the past. If this isn't clear please google present perfect tense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the clarification. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)