Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Attempt to suppress notable information from article

I am very concerned that two editors have attempted (and so far succeeded) to suppress a fully sourced passage in this article. The passage is as follows:

Following the Brexit campaign (in which Corbyn gave what his critics called a "half-hearted" call for the UK to remain in the European Union), and the success of the "Leave" campaign, a motion of no confidence in Corbyn as Labour leader was tabled by the MPs Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey in a letter to the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party on 24 June 2016. Hodge claimed "“This has been a tumultuous referendum which has been a test of leadership ... Jeremy has failed that test". John McDonnell and union leaders including Len McCluskey condemned the motion.

It is fully sourced by citations from the BBC and The Guardian. User:Bodney deleted it as "too early" and "too biased". He also wrote in his summary "I hope you are aware Smearus [ssc] that you can only do one revert in 24 hours on this article". A documented formal challenge to a party leader by his or her own parliamentary party must in itself be WP:NOTABLE. "Too early" is a piece of WP:OR that has no relevance. The opinions of both sides are mentioned in the extract, so as to avoid bias. I can only construe Bodney's revert as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I set aside his rudeness in rewriting my name , and his hint of referral to arbitration. I do not believe that the 1Revert lock on this page should prevent the provision of genuine information, and invoking it in this sense seems to me to be intimidatory.

After another editor had added back the paragraph and citations, User:Nomoskedasticity then redeleted it as "WP:NOTNEWS -- the question is whether this would be a long-term item for the page, and we won't know unless it passes". I, and maybe others take issue with Nomoskedasticity on this: it implies that unless it passes, it be suppressed as information on WP, again an individual view of the editor which militates against WP standards of Notability. I should be grateful for the views of other editors. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is notable enough to be mentioned, in my opinion. There is a whole section dedicated to plots against Gordon Brown's leadership in the article about his time as Prime Minister, and none of those amounted to anything. Also this is not the first time Corbyn's leadership has been called into question, but whether this particular event deserves a section of its own, or a brief mention, largely depends upon whether or not MPs vote on the matter. This is Paul (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Up to 200 MPs are expected to support the motion according to multiple sources. (213.122.144.4 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC))

If it passes, then fine. If it doesn't pass, then it has no long term future in the article. Encyclopaedia, not news. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That is more or less equivalent to saying that as the Brexit referendum failed, it shouldn't be in WP. A revolt against a political leader is an event in the life of that political leader. As Paul points out above, it is acceptable for the Gordon Brown article - why try to hide it for Corbyn? WP:IDONTLIKE is not a justification - so, more specifically, please indicate to me the exact WP guideline which forbids it being entered in the article, or makes 'passing' the relevant criterion. See WP:N#TEMP which is explicit- "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This topic is covered in BBC, The Guardian, and all other British newspapers. It qualifies unless you can show a WP guideline which forbids it.--Smerus (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What Smerus said is basically correct. That said, there is WP:NORUSH here. See what Monday brings and go from there. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots, WP:NORUSH refers to creating new articles. in this case, an article exists, and the addition of relevant information is hindered by spurious reasoning. The article therefore becomes more and more out-of-date as events keep on coming (see section below).--Smerus (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference here is that a vote of no confidence hasn't happened yet, Benn has been sacked, Alexander has resigned. Waiting a few more hours won't do any harm. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Resignations and sackings of Shadow Cabinet members are likely to be notable, a motion before its past is not. (i am away, i find typing on an ipad near impossible).-- BOD -- 11:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can just about see the argument for not reporting on the no confidence motion until it definitely takes place, but to invoke WP:NOTNEWS to argue that a no confidence motion "has no future in the article" if it doesn't pass is specious nonsense. A motion of no confidence in a party leader is certainly an event of long term significance to their leadership, whether it it passes, narrowly fails with surprisingly few repercussions or is overwhelmingly defeated. Dtellett (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn vote of no confidence

I believe the figures are incorrect - should be 172-40 not 272-40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.223.107 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is he now the leader or not? Someone had added an edit that he was no longer leader but that was deleted. Frankly, I agree that he continues as leader unless/until he is defeated in a leadership election. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the typo in the figures. He is leader until he stands down or someone else is elected leader. Neither of those things have yet happened. I've removed the incorrect claim (added in this edit ) that he is no longer leader - the vote of no confidence among MPs has no constitutional status within the party as a whole. But this may have changed by the time I've finished writing this..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed! (by the way, the Canadian Parliamentary system is identical.) Peter K Burian (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05125.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Chakrabarti Inquiry

I've started an article about the Chakrabarti Inquiry, but am keen for it not to become a pro- or anti-Corbyn page, so thought I'd mention it here in the hope that we can have a few pairs of eyes watching it. This is Paul (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn sacks Hilary Benn

List of potential sources. Suggestions are due to the aftermath of Brexit, but could be wrong. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

but see above. Apparently it may be 'too early' to place genuine information in the article in case it upsets some editors.--Smerus (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

and now Heidi Alexander has quit the Shadow Cabinet, with more to follow - but God forbid that this information should appear on Wikipedia......--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added the information. If editors are worried, then they can put a current event marker on it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In the article should not the 'Shadow Cabinet resignations section' and the 'EU referendum and its consequences' be combined as they are both about the same unraveling story. I am not sure how best to do it.-- BOD -- 19:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A fair point. I've made "Shadow Cabinet resignations" a subsection of "EU referendum and its consequences" for now. Assuming the widely anticipated leadership challenge happens and regardless of its outcome I think it'll need retitling and rearranging to emphasise the leadership challenge rather than the referendum campaign itself as being the major event of Corbyn's leadership, but it would be premature to do so at this stage. Dtellett (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Further suggestion when the dust is settled, to make this article more encyclopedic and maybe more readable, maybe at least three of the subsections relating to Corbyn's cabinet be firmly tidied up and sharply cut with a link to Shadow Cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn, which outlines the changes more straightforwardly. -- BOD -- 15:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of making the article encyclopedic and readable, please can you stop adding quotes from every Corbyn supporter (the union's position is important, but Abbott and McDonnell's comments really aren't adding much). It's not "balance" when you're not doing the same for the many more senior figures that have made comments critical of him, and to add multiple quotes in a truly representative manner would make the article far too current opinion-heavy for an encyclopedia. It's also not "balance" to introduce an arbitrary Newsnight mini-survey of 50 councillors who backed him at the last election as a counterweight to a vote of confidence from the Parliamentary party he's actually supposed to lead, or speculate that a majority of members still support him in the wake of a vote of no confidence because they did just over a month ago (which might be true, but is the sort of speculation Wikipedia generally doesn't indulge in, even the current article didn't already do a more than adequate job of conveying that has a big natural support base within the party). I mean, we could start including surveys suggesting 53% of Labour voters think he should resign and tallying up local confidence and no-confidence votes too, but ultimately it's supposed to be a biography, not a list of reason why X is wrong. If you're really adamant we need all this stuff then it needs to go into a separate article on Jeremy Corbyn leadership challenge, but I think that's overkill Dtellett (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Diane Abbott's quote is correct regarding labour party rules, all these lines on resignations & votes of confidence etc have no standingunder Labour Party rules, what matters is a leadership challenge, the polls give an indication how tough an official challenge might be, mcdonnell is right about pressure tactic to force corbyn to buckle without an official challenge. I have removed the newsnight one which i still believe gives a good indication of current support. The other on the membership who are going to vote is only 6 weeks old.-- BOD -- 20:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

6 weeks is a very long time in politics, especially when a referendum defeat, mass resignations and 80% of his MPs saying they can't work with him happen in between. It's ludicrously misleading to insert the statement "support has remained strong" into a narrative about problems for Corbyn after the support figure was estimated. We can include up to date relevant polls if and when they happen. We've already stated using actual encylopedic phrasing the fact the referendum is non-binding and Corbyn intends to continue, so Diane Abbott and McDonnell's highly partisan quotes are entirely superfluous . Weighing the paragraph down wth quotes describing it as "bullying" and "corridor coups" from the small minority of MPs that don't want him to resign is introducing a glaringly inappropriate POV slant into the article. Thanks for removing the McDonnell one, but the Abbott quote isn't needed here either Dtellett (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Newsnight was not a mini-survey of "50 councillors" but a survey of the heads of local labour parties of who have a vote in an actual leadership election, it was illustrating the split in the party bt PLP & the CLP who they are supposed to be representing but I accept its removal. The current article had all its stress on Labour Mps and Grandees when its the membership (not voters) that actually changes the leadership unless Corbyn buckles under the enormous pressure he is under.-- BOD -- 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The MPs resignations and no confidence vote are important facts of lasting significance to his leadership (whether it continues or not) that need to be documented. The membership vote is just WP:CRYSTAL speculation, particularly with no contest declared and no polls since the resignations (bar a handful of wildly differing and unrepresentative CLP votes). Dtellett (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The no confidence vote or personal resignations are not important in themselves, they may not have lasting significance, what matters is whether Corbyn buckles under pressure or that a proper leadership challenge is made under the democratic rules of the party. -- BOD -- 23:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Leadership challenges, votes of confidence and mass resignations are always of significance to a political figure, regardless of whether they remain in place and especially when happening on unprecedented scale. Biographies are descriptions of significant events during politicians' tenures, not discussion over how and whether they should remain in position. Dtellett (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope we agree that it is important that an article should have a balanced POV. That is what I have been trying to do. I am trying to make sure that is a balanced no partisan description of processes rather support a particular individual. The are 3 camps here... the (A) The Rebels (From Soft left to right of the party), (B) The Supporters, and then the are (C) Those who wish to follow the democratic rule book (e.g. Andy Burnham & Emily Thornberry) I am trying to make sure B & C are represented here as much as A.-- BOD -- 10:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Still no leadership challenge / the reason for PLPs pressure tactics .... A Yougov poll (only includes full party member and not £3 supporters or trade unionists) today says that while those members who think Corbyn is doing well has dropped from 72% to 51% that Mr Corbyn would defeat Tom Watson by 50 points to 39, Angela Eagle by 50 points to 40, and Dan Jarvis by 52 points to 35. Asked another way, who they would like to lead the Labour party, 36 per cent of members said Mr Corbyn, Andy Burnham 10 per cent, Dan Jarvis 9 per cent. Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper both 8 per cent, while Angela Eagle was on 7 per cent.-- BOD -- 10:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

When did he marry Laura Alvarez?

The article currently states that Jeremy Corbyn married Laura Alvarez in 2013. But two other sources indicate that they married in 2012:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258245/An-insight-marriage-Jeremy-Corbyn-Laura-Alvarez.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-met-third-wife-6480316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, they're very high quality sources, aren't they? Seriously though, let's stick with 2013 until/unless we can find something a bit more reliable that says differently. This is Paul (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Just raising the question. Daily Telegraph also wrote that they were married in 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11710685/jeremy-corbyn-profile.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

El Gato

Corbyn owns a somewhat famous cat called El Gato https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/734314803326517248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw this should be in the personal life section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.126.98 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on infobox image

Which of the below images should be used in the infobox of this article and in election infoboxes (such as at Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015)? AusLondonder (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2 (Current image)
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4
• 
  Option 5
• 
  Option 6
• 
  Option 7

• Comment Pinging interested users from discussion above: Ghmyrtle, Bodney, Martinevans123, Govindaharihari, JMiall, Stemoc AusLondonder (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 is the best option, in my opinion. 1, 2 and 7 seem rather unflattering and it'd probably be best to avoid that. - PaintTrash (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option 6 to my mind best conveys the subject (4 & 5 are not bad). The picture may have been taken from a film, but the is no evidence of any copyright issues as the image was taken from a flickr account where the are scores of related images by the same camera man. It portrays well Corbyn's core political campaigning persona.-- BOD -- 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to support 4 rather than 2-- BOD -- 16:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 and 2, in that order. Options 1, 3, and 7 all contain too much shadow. Options 5 and 6 make it look like the light of the sun is radiating from Mr. Corbyn's forehead. 2 and 4 have the best lighting. Of those, Option 4 has the subject looking toward the article text and doesn't emphasize his front teeth. ~ Rob^Talk 09:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, I feel that's the problem with Option 2. Some could consider that the picture portrays Corbyn in a "disparaging light" - particularly in comparison with the image used at David Cameron, for example. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2, weakly preferred to Option 6. The color on 1 seems problematic; the background on 7 is too noisy. 3 looks as though it's very slightly out of focus. 4 or 5 would be acceptable, with 4 slightly preferred for better lighting, but the microphone seems obtrusive to me, and I don't care for the contrast between the brightly-lit forehead and the rest of the face. 6 seems like the best live-action shot, but the face over Corbyn's right shoulder detracts from it. 2 is well lighted and seems to show the textures of the face the best. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 6 if the distracting head behind him can be blurred into anonymity. Option 2 is second best. Options 4 and 5 make him look like Frank Sinatra... a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• 2 (normal, standard-looking headshot), 5 (microphone is a bit distracting, but clear headshot), 4 (a blurrier 5), 1 (bit too much shadow, but OK), 6 (background distracting), 7 (too distant), 3 (looks odd and not like him) would be my order of preference. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 6 for me. Simple, representative of the man, though not perfect. The others all have something just too incorrect about them. I think we should go back to 6 until a better free image becomes available. Nbdelboy (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 and then 4 - simple clear head-shot. A problem with six is that it promotes a single issue of Corbens opinions and the infobox is not for that, the image number two is neutral head-shot only. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 for me. Rwendland (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 6 to my mind also "best conveys the subject", and the fragment of that face of New Labour is far more distracting that any supposed "single issue bias" given by part of an emblem that few will recognise. And again as per User:Bodney, 4 and 5 are not bad - his awkwardness with the microphone seems to somehow reflect his personality a little. Option 2 is not without it merits, particularly in its clarity and composition, but the suggested smirk is just too risky. Options 1 and 7 might even do, although the poor guy looks exhausted. As for Option 3, argggghhh it's like something from a nightmare Thatcher might have had in the 70s, just "Creepsville, Noo Joizey". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Frankly, any of the images are OK, with only 3 being questionable due to being heavily photoshopped. Personally I think the best image we've used on the page was the one of him in the cap (as used on his personal website [1]) but despite Corbyn's own media team using it, this was IIRC removed due to it being perceived by some editors seeing it portraying him in a negative light! Dtellett (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I liked that one too. What happened to the email campaign? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 - Neutral depiction of subject with good lighting. Meatsgains (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - cleanest image and also probably the most accurate depiction of what Corbyn actually looks like. Images 4 and 5 would be okay if he was a less important figure in British politics but the microphone covering his mouth detracts too much from the image. Ebonelm (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - 3 is seemingly a retouched-looking portrait, the others all have distracting elements (I fear a microphone as an appendage is weird looking, a stray head is odd, and all-in-all, 2 is clear and accurate). Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 - despite the microphone, he looks intent on whatever he's talking about and looking at, unlike others in which he looks uncomfortable to be photographed. Readers are used to seeing politicians with microphones.Parkwells (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• FYI sub-total: just added the above favourites up, and to save others the time options 2, 6 and 4 have roughly the same amount of support, with option 2 (5 votes) one ahead of level-pegging options 4 and 6 (4 votes each). So no mandate for a change from current photo so far. Rwendland (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - current HQ image, best available, an actual jpeg image, not a screenshot of a video...taken in April so very recent..--Stemoc 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 - The photo is neutral, professional, relevant, has good lighting, and depicts him in a normal state. The photo doesn't look over-edited or pixely, and is clear in showing his physical features. I think this is the best option. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Ι agree with Meatsgains (good lighting, neutral), and -more or less- with the last comment by Comatmebro. Although picture 4 isn't perfect, another positive element is the Parliament as background (politics- related). As per the current image, I can't but wonder for the choice - and the one who made it. It is certainly not flattering (on the face) and, most importantly it is not the main impression you get for this man, based on a quick image search on the internet. Anyway, after more than a month-long discussion, it is justified to change the infobox photograph: image 4 has received the most support (from 6 users, vs. im.2: 5 users etc). Greetings, Routhramiotis/Ρουθραμιώτης (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Options 4,5 or 6 neutral, 2 is deliberately offensive ----Snowded ^TALK 12:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Why "deliberately offensive"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This has now been open for a over a month. Could someone move to close, before other editors start to get "twitchy"? Not sure what the consensus is. Perhaps both User:JJARichardson and User:Ρουθραμιώτης would like to express an opinion here before the close? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe also AusLondonder who started this Rfc would like to vote.-- BOD -- 16:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2, per User:Ebonelm.--Smerus (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 6 or Option 4 -- Chris Fynn (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 3 We should use image without any other object, in other pictures there are microphones that I find unsuitable to serve as main image. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion relating to the Images

To me Option 2 looks a bit humorous - like Corbyn has a worried expression, checking behind himself, hoping folks will not notice what he has done. It is not good photo of a major political party figure. -- BOD -- 18:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Option 3 should have the caption "Are you serious?" and 4 and 5 do ... do look like photos from a Frank Sinatra tribute session ... maybe Corbyn can do Eurovision next year -- BOD -- 18:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• note this commentary is simply a wikipedia user attacking a living person, totally against the main wikipedia policy WP:BLP and the users comments should be considered as attacking and or ignored as such. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  No, it's a perfectly fair appraisal wholly devoid of political intent. And what have you got against Frank, exactly?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  I'm only guessing but users (like yourself and Bodney?) posting negative comments about the subject are not the best users to select a infobox picture of the subject. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  They ere simply comments about the suitability of the pictures not the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.-- BOD -- 14:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  They don't look like that to me, but weyhey, I'll accept your comment and apply good faith. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment No useful opinion, but why do 'related' articles have to use the same pic. Why should the election page not use a photo FROM/during the election. (is that too problematic a suggestion?). Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

May I just suggest the use of one of the official photos of him, as befitting of HM Opposition - from the telegraph, also used on his twitter... http://www.telgraf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isci-partisinde-liderlik-krizi-jeremy-corbyn-baskilara-ragmen-kalmakta-israrli-01.jpg VelvetCommuter (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn

Might I suggest that we create an article Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn or Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party because otherwise content which is notable and should be on Wikipedia will have to be kept off this article for lack of space. Corbyn has not even had a full year yet and already there is an awful lot of content there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to hold that off until we know whether his leadership of the Labour Party is likely to last longer than a year or not, because I'm not sure the current article is too long and I can't think of too much that's notable at this stage that's missing (Chakrabati inquiry perhaps, but that has its own article). We already have spinoff articles devoted to his Shadow Cabinet, his policy positions and the leadership challenge as well as one on Momentum. Arguably some of the existing content (list of Shadow Cabinet resigners and new appointees) could be moved to some of those. Dtellett (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean immediately, so after the leadership election would be fine. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Coverage MUST be balanced ... Dtellett did not have consensus to delete fully cited portions of Nuclear section

09:45, 19 July 2016‎ Dtellett (-3,251)‎ . . (→‎Nuclear defence: cut outdated stuf and excessive commentary) This is outrageous.

What consensus building was attempted? None. Wikipedia:Consensus

"Cut excessive commentary" = delete every single word that is even slightly critical of Corbyn. Well as you well know, many in the Labour party, and in the highly-respected news media, are critical of some of Corbyn's actions and of his views that are counter to party policy. Over half the Labour MPs voted against his position - in line with long-standing Labour policy in favour of at-sea neuclear deterrent. How is that not relevant in an article about Corbyn?

The Telegraph was particularly critical of Corbyn's "minority view" on this issue, warning that he was facing a "Labour mutiny".[232]

That -3,251 edit was a total whitewash; it totally destroyed any trace of balanced coverage.

I will edit it and restore some balance. Start and Edit War and I will file for Wikipedia:Mediation Peter K Burian (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article, inserting coverage of the significance of over 60% of Labour MPs refusing to support Corbyn on the Trident vote.

How was this issue not relevant to the article? It has been extensively covered by major news media:

• Jeremy Corbyn suffers biggest rebellion of his leadership

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/trident-vote-jeremy-corbyn-facing-labour-mutiny-as-mps-set-to-::ba/

• Trident crystallises Labour doubts and divisions http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36829475

• Labour fury as Corbyn refers to nuclear deterrent policy in past tense http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-18/labour-fury-as-corbyn-refers-to-nuclear-deterrent-policy-in-past-tense/

• Most Labour MPs Defy Jeremy Corbyn To Back Renewal Of Trident

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/jeremy-corbyn-attacked-by-labour-mps-as-he-calls-for-trident

• Jeremy Corbyn fails the Trident test, as UK renews nuclear deterrent

About 60 percent of Labour MPs sided with the government to replace aging submarines. http://www.politico.eu/article/trident-corbyn-vote-nuclear-news-deterrent/

• Labour MPs defy Jeremy Corbyn to back nuclear submarines https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/news/77434/three-quarters-labour-mps-defy-jeremy-corbyn-back-nuclear-submarines

• Corbyn hit by mass Labour Trident revolt

www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/.../281500750598699

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it is possible to copyedit Wikipedia without seeking your permission first, and the idea that I'm "whitewashing" Corbyn by cutting down excess verbiage like "Work on a possible replacement of the Trident submarines was awaiting the outcome of a vote in Parliament on 18 July 2016" is frankly ludicrous, especially considering my edit history on this page.

Apart from the outdated stuff from the buildup to the vote, I also removed commentary about the rift and speculation about its effects on his leadership campaign from the Telegraph because (i) the section is supposed to be a summary of policy positions he's had for the last thirty-odd years rather than analysis of the leadership election and (ii) the fact his vote was a minority vote and against Labour party policy - both of which were mentioned in my edits - speaks for itself about the fact it could be considered a controversial stance for a leader to take. Additionally, I removed the detail of who his challengers voted for because it's a biography of Corbyn rather than a discussion of the policy positions of the leadership challenges.

I suggest you check WP:NOTNEWS before spamming the page with news articles to try to prove your point. I mean, I can find that many articles on his decision to wear a red poppy rather than a white one which isn't worth mentioning in here at all. His stance on nuclear weapons warrants coverage; that's not in dispute. We don't need five paragraphs of commentary on it though, just because newspaper articles don't summarise events as briefly as an encyclopedia should. That places far too much WP:UNDUE weight on the issueDtellett (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not brevity Dtellett but your deleting every word that was critical of Corbyn in the Nuclear defence section. That destroyed balanced coverage.

We do not need for long paragraphs on his views about Taxation or Foreign Affairs WP:UNDUE ... but you chose not to condense either of those sections. My last edit left the Nuclear section at an equivalent of two long paragraphs.

And speculation? When 60% of his MPs vote against Corbyn - and another 40 stay away from Parliament so they will not obviously be seen as defying him - you have the makings of a rebellion. Clearly, the majority of his MPs are against Corbyn's refutal of the party's long-held policy in favour of at-sea nuclear deterrent. And that policy is not something new. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And this article is titled Jeremy Corbyn not Corbyn's Philosphy. So when his MPs are rebelling and voting against him, it is a significant part of Corbyn's bio. Should we have a new section "Rebellion against Corbyn" - and move the "rebellion" content to that section? If so, I would have no objection to moving the content accordingly. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The section of the article in question was called "policies and views". Leadership speculation does not belong in a section on policies and views, period. A free vote is not a rebellion against Corbyn, period (if anyone's rebelling here it's Corbyn...). The taxation and foreign policy sections are longer because they cover more complicated subjects whereas Corbyn's opposition to nuclear weapons is as simple and unequivocal as it gets. We don't need a "rebellion" section because we already have two separate sections of the article devoted to one vote, both created by you and both full of unnecessary commentary. Just as I said to the last user to insert several quotations favourable to Corbyn into the leadership challenge section when I removed them, inserting multiple quotes to support a particular view of Corbyn's leadership does not make the article more balanced, it makes it substantially less balanced, as well as long and unwieldy. Dtellett (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The new photo

Note, post adjustment (contrast +10), the photos below no longer exactly show the original issue.

Firstly, I'd welcome any general comments on the new photo that I boldly installed without discussion.

Secondly, I'd like comments on a different colourised variant User:GuarénDeBiblioteca has created. Ignore the different crops, I'd like comments on the colour etc changes:

• 
  My original cropped photo
• 
  GuarénDeBiblioteca recolourised version
• 
  (just FYI, a wider crop I have not used, sort-of The Original)

GuarénDeBiblioteca version has the merit of being visually stronger, with "deeper colours". But its disadvatages in my view is creating non-natural colours - overly red IMO and blowing out the colour in areas like his jacket, and has doubled the pixels count from the original which has contributed to blurring in the hi-res version. I'd welcome comments on which version works better in the Corbyn article. GuarénDeBiblioteca has changed the image in the article from my version and crop (left) to his re-colourised larger crop. Thanks. NB I prefer my original, but perhaps a slightly deepened version without creating blurring/blow-out would be better. Rwendland (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the more natural (original) one.(edited)-- BOD -- 23:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Prefer the original one, though somewhere in between with slightly deeper colours might be better than both Dtellett (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(agree)-- BOD -- 14:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, per consensus, have largely reverted, but increased contrast +10 which deepens colours a bit toward GuarénDeBiblioteca's version. Rwendland (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I truly do not understand

I do not understand the problem with adding the following phrase 'in which 72% of the Labour Party voted to remain in the European Union’(which was supported by a reference) ...but at least two separate editors have reverted this addition, referring to WP:SYNTH, but I do not understand how it relates, something must be wrong, but I am confused what. -- BOD -- 20:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you some questions, and request that you give a source for your answer. 1) Was that 72% an achievement of Jeremy Corbyn? 2) What would the figure have been, had he done (a) nothing, (b) all-out campaigning for leave, (c) all-out campaigning for remain? 3) What significance can be attached to the fact that Labour voters were 63-37 in favour of remain (source Ashcroft poll) while Labour Party members were 90-9 in favour of remain (source Yougov)? If you can answer those questions with sources then you might understand why it's synthesis. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, lol i still dont understand, maybe its the lack of sleep :) I was not trying claim that Corbyn was responsible for the Labour vote to Remain rather I was simply adding a supported statement into the section. I am unable to answer your question regards the difference between labour members and voters. During the EU Referendum the media concentrated on the Remain and Leave divisions within the Conservative Party especially on the rivalry between David Cameron and Boris Johnson. There was noticeably less coverage of non-Conservatives including Corbyn. Overall Corbyn was the seventh most visible national politician, and by far the most visible Labour politician during the EU campaign. So he did more than nothing.(source Loughborough)

Was he actually for or against. If he had been against I personally believe the Leave vote would have been greater, but that is just a guess. Maybe some folks where confused with his Remain but Reform campaign, it is very hard to find hard to find a unbiased reporting on Corbyn in general.(source LSE)-- BOD -- 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The point of WP:SYNTH is that unconnected facts should not be put together in a way which implies a conclusion. In this case, you had offered three facts: 1) The majority of votes in the referendum were for leave, 2) A large majority of Labour supporters voted remain, 3) Corbyn was accused of not campaigning hard enough for remain. That construction carries a clear implication that the level of Labour support was connected to Corbyn's efforts, that it was significantly higher than might have been expected in other circumstances, and that the criticisms were therefore misplaced. Hence the questions I posed. There is no particular evidence that Jeremy Corbyn had any effect in either direction on the referendum vote of Labour supporters (indeed this is one of the criticisms of him). No-one can be sure if he had taken a different stance, or been more active, things would have changed. So the proportion of Labour supporters who voted Remain isn't relevant to this case, and introducing it in the context proposed is a WP:SYNTH to make a case about Corbyn. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Media representation section

In the "media representation" section, a study from the LSE has been added. This study does not seem to be written in an impartial way - it takes an exclusively pro-Corbyn slant and does not look at any other leaders to see how coverage compares. Not to mention the fact that whether a newspaper article is "being scathing, disingenuous, insulting or mocking" is fairly subjective. Of course it is not for Wikipedia to take sides on this and we should certainly include this study in the article, but we should also be cautious about writing it up as if it is necessarily objective truth, as it seems to be currently. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to see a pro-Corbyn slant in this study. I read it as an objective study into subjective journalism. Press media is rarely objective. -- BOD -- 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The lack of criticism of Corbyn in the entire study is slightly worrying. I agree that press media is not objective, but that doesn't mean that any study saying so is automatically right. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Surely the study was not about critiquing Corbyn himself, but investigating the news media's approach to him. I think if the academic study is supported with sound impartial evidence, then it can be treated as as an acceptable source on this page. -- BOD -- 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As above, I don't see how them deciding whether an article is unfairly anti-Corbyn can be impartial when it is completely subjective. My bigger issue is that their claim that this sort of thing doesn't happen to other politicians was not backed up with any evidence. Just look at the coverage of Andrea Leadsom which was almost all negative (and rightly so in my opinion) but that doesn't mean she is being unfairly lampooned. Note that I do think it shouldn't be used as a source for this page, just that we should not quote it as fact which it is currently. It should be more along the lines of "A study from LSE claimed that..." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The study is clearly as unbalanced as the much of the media it purports to criticise, but that doesn't by itself make it an inadmissible source: it's from academics affiliated with a highly-respected institution and the underlying view that Corbyn has been frequently and sometimes harshly criticised by the press is a pretty uncontroversial one. I've removed "in away that no other political leader is or has been" from the text as this simply isn't supported by the study itself. More generally, I think that if this belongs in the article it belongs in a wider paragraph of "reactions to Corbyn" or "political commentary" with a representative set of viewpoints, and this probably belongs further down the article below the actual events of his leadership and his policies and views Dtellett (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I put it early in the article as the political commentary is probably having a significant affect on his leadership and to fore warn/ remind the reader that Corbyn is a controversial figure in the eyes of many sources reporting on events surrounding him. I need to reread the study again at some stage, regards the phrase that both Dtellett and Absolutelypuremilk have removed.-- BOD -- 18:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: recent edit

The purpose of this article is to give encyclopedic coverage of Jeremy Corbyn, not to to "forewarn the reader" about alleged biases of the BBC. The opinion of a particular academic on how particular news bulletins over ten days covered a particular event simply isn't noteworthy enough worth devoting multiple sentences to. I mean, one of the "findings" is literally referencing an extra ~80 seconds of critical comments broadcast; and that during a week in which the main story was why 80% of Corbyn's Parliamentary party had no confidence in him and why people were resigning from it. (The stated assumption the study relies on - that Corbyn's building up of grassroots over several months previously is "equally newsworthy" as reasons for resignations occurring during the week of the broadcasts monitored - is particularly dubious). An extra 80 seconds of criticism during a bad week isn't encyclopedia-worthy, period.

RE: the section in general.

I fully agree that Corbyn's relationship with the media deserves coverage, including the well established fact that he has borne the brunt of a lot of press hostility and the widely held opinion that much of it may have been undue or excessive. But it should be a proper section covering Corbyn's statements about and to the media, ways in which the media has depicted him, his successes in using social media as an alternative communication channel, criticisms from fellow party members about his willingness and ability to communicate effectively over the media, the documentary about him, and his longstanding column in and views on the Morning Star... not a list of citations in support of the WP:FRINGE view that nothing written about Corbyn can be trusted to be true. I think that in line with other bios this belongs below "Policies and Views" and could be substantially expanded upon including using existing material. Would welcome input from other editors on this Dtellett (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

...Corbyn attended fee paying preparatory school Castle House, followed by Adams' Grammar School and and later North London Polytechnic, though he did not complete his degree...

[N.B reference to Castle House is suggested addition. Source: The Jeremy Corbyn Story: Profile of Labour leader - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34184265 86.147.191.90 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Been there done that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hard left in lead

Editors are disagreeing over the addition of hard-left to the lead. I personally don't think this should be in the lead, and certainly not in the first sentence, but would accept if someone (with adequate cites) added "Corbyn has been described as hard-left by....." to the main body of the article. I should also remind editors that this article is subject to 1RR, i.e. you are only allowed one revert per 24 hours. No one has broken this yet but just thought I would remind everyone. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this probably shouldn't be in the first sentence of the lead, so happy for it to be removed. I do think the descriptor probably belongs somewhere; whilst some right wing tabloids' use of it as an epithet can safely be ignored, there are fairly balanced articles in the likes of the New Statesman discussing the relationship between hard left and soft left within the modern Labour party which place Corbyn and his closest allies in the former category. The wikilink should be to hard left, which describes the faction of the Labour party with which Corbyn is most commonly associated and not to hard-left as in the previous edit, which for some reason redirects to an article about European far left, predominantly communist parties. Probably something like "Corbyn is regarded as a prominent member of the hard left grouping within the Labour party" with multiple sources from non-hostile articles , somewhere in a new or expanded paragraph in the article body discussing his relationships within the party (association with the Labour Representation Committee (2004) for example) is the best way to discuss it. Dtellett (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to see it here, but it has to be clear what it means. That means linking it, and linking it to some article covering Corbyn's position within UK politics of the present time. I'd be happy for that article to be hard left, but that article has suffered from POV pushing in the past and needs to be watched. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

Hello, I think I've spotted a typo in the section entitled "Leadership of the opposition" subsection "January 2016 Shadow Cabinet reshuffle". In the second sentence of the second paragraph reads "Thornberry]], unlike Maria Eagle, is an opponent of nuclear weapons and British involvement in Syria. Eagle was in turn moved to Shadow Culture Secretary to replace Michael Dugher. Corbyn lso replaced Shadow Europe Minister (not attending Shadow Cabinet) Pat McFadden with Pat Glass." As you can see the ]] after Thronberry is clearly a mistake.

Many thanks!

Agozer (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this, I have removed it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn's 1975 Referendum Vote

In the Early Career and politics section it is stated that 'In the 1975 European Union referendum, Corbyn opposed Britain's membership of the European Union (EU).[21]' This is not in fact the case (the EU was not founded until 1993). Rather: 'In the 1975 EEC Membership Referendum Corbyn voted against the United Kingdom staying in the European Community (the Common Market).' Given the recent political debates this seems an important distinction to be accurate about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WKB16 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for pointing it out. Now  Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn A-Level results

I believe numerous sources can confirm Jeremy Corbyn obtained two 'E-grades' at A-level, up until recently this information was on the Wikipedia page at the end of the 'Early Life' section, but it has been deleted. Without meaning to sound like a snob I believe it is reasonable to look at the academic record of politicians when deciding whether to vote for them, and while someones academic record does not always reflect their ability it is something to consider. I am requesting for this information to be re-added to the article?

Information requested to be added:

"obtained two E-grades at A-level"

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34184265

Tangotwizzle (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added this to the article, I'm not sure why it was removed. As you say, it comes up in many RS, including The Guardian and The Telegraph as well as the Independent and the BBC sources now in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

How was he allowed to attend a university if he only had two Es? (217.42.27.218 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

On balance it is trivia and not notable so the removal was probably justified. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If four separate sources cover it, then I would say that it is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Did he really attend university on two Es or not? (217.42.27.218 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

Jeremy Corbyn didn't go to university. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article says he did. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

No it doesn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. He even has an Alma mater. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

No it doesn't. Read it again. Doesn't say university. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

He studied trade union studies at North London Polytechnic. Polytechnics were generally recognised as being less academically exclusive than universities. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just floored by that observation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Universities didn't always require such high A-level grades. I was made an offer by University College London in 1976, on the basis of an interview, that only required me to gain two Es. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Press TV and antisemitism

Expenses and other interests section

Is it really acceptable in wikipedia to include in the wikipedia biography of a living person, a comment about an assertion where the is no evidence that Corbyn agreed with the assertion made by another participant on the TV show, simply because “ it could be interpreted as indifference as well.” Everyday the are programs broadcast where particpants say things and hosts is not obliged say things in response to what has been said.-- BOD -- 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep -- that was a pretty stinky piece of innuendo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it was on a Iranian state TV show whose government has an appalling record on attitudes towards Jews. Remember the notorious International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in 2006. I could have referred to Corbyn's claim that he appeared on Press TV to raise "human rights" issues. I probably will now. But given the appalling record of the Ahmadinejad government in this policy area, I do not believe that can be taken at face value, although the current unavailability online of most of Corbyn's Press TV broadcasts makes this difficult for publications. Citing Oliver Kamm's tweet seemed the best way of hinting at the problem. Call it innuendo if you want, but it looks totally valid to me. Corbyn's much criticised comments about the "tragedy" of Osama bin Laden's death on Press TV probably should be included

"Indifference" is the best that can be said of Corbyn in connection with antisemitism. The issue has been raised by numerous reliable sources in coverage since last summer. Yet the word antisemitism appears nowhere in this article, while Corbyn has periodically been accused of being indifferent to the prejudice (or hatred of Jews) for more than a year. Even Corbyn conceded this was an issue when he set up the Chakrabarti Inquiry after his friend Ken Livingstone was suspended following Livingstone's assertions about the comments by Naz Shah. There is a link to the Chakrabarti Inquiry in the panel for Corbyn related articles, but nothing directly about the issue. Even a brief outline of incidents since September 2015 is absent here.There is a section about the issue in Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015 on his connections with people accused of antisemitism, but things have moved on since then.

Corbyn cannot be blamed for the actions of people who appear to be his supporters, but there is nothing here either on the abuse of Jewish MPs such as Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth or the expulsion of activists for antisemitic tweets. His responses have consistently been found wanting in sources we are supposed to use. Philip Cross (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of all this, the is still zero evidence that he is an anti-semite.-- BOD -- 23:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But an abundance of evidence from primary and secondary sources that anti Semitism doesn't appear to bother him enough for him to challenge it when confronted by it. Dtellett (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

[Responding to Bodney, as Dtellett's comments were added subsequently.] Actually, my main point is that the issue is totally absent from the article. Sources generally cover themselves by not risking potential libel in saying Corbyn is an antisemite, and we much too. But is true that Corbyn has persistently shown questionable judgement, and has been called out on it in multiple sources. Apart from the treatment of Angela Eagle, the sexist and homophobic abuse under his watch is also ignored.here, as well as the outbreaks of antisemitism. Philip Cross (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC) (Parenthesis Philip Cross (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC) )

Unfortunately various prejudices have exited in probaly all political parties through out time. They certainly did not start with Corbyn. Again the is zero proof that Corbyn has any link to those sexist or homophobic accusations that Philip Cross makes, most have been proven untrue. Corbyn has been supporting LGBT rights since the 70's.

Claim: Jeremy Corbyn encourages misogyny, anti-Semitism and racism in the Labour Party.

Fact: Jeremy Corbyn has consistently, strongly and clearly spoken out against every form of abuse, both in the Labour Party and beyond, from well before he became leader of the Labour Party. In 1988, a long time before gender violence was of major concern in the public sphere, Jeremy Corbyn was advocating for womens' rights in Parliament: “Another important issue mentioned by the Home Secretary is the incidence of rape, other sexual violence and domestic violence. The number of cases reported has increased in recent years, but I believe that a substantial number of women who suffer rape or other sexual attack still feel, for various reasons, unable or unwilling to report the offence to the police. It thus does not appear as a recorded offence and cannot be followed up because the police do not even know about it. Far more thought needs to be given to the protection of women on the streets of London at night and to a system of reporting, following up and investigating incidents which does not put the woman concerned under further stress or difficulty. The police could then be encouraged to follow the matter up, as I believe that there is still serious under-reporting of such offences.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

He set up an inquiry into racism and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the first party leader to do so, and encouraged his colleagues in other Parties to do the same. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/… - http://www.labour.org.uk/…/party-doc…/ChakrabartiInquiry.pdf

At his first Labour Conference as party leader in September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was very clear about his expectations: “So I say to all activists, whether Labour or not: cut out with the personal abuse, cut out the cyber bullying, and especially the misogynistic abuse online, and let’s get on with bringing real values back into politics”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4u4qhYxk_Y

He has maintained this stance ever since (and before), and not just for the Labour Party: “Is my hon. Friend able to say something about the role played by local newspapers in the Dover area, because they did much to foment racism against Roma people and other people arriving? Is it not the duty of the House to tell every local education authority and every school that it is their duty to promote mutual respect, support and integration, instead of bowing to racist pressures?” - November 2002 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

“Does she agree that it is also important, from the point of view of a public message, that we place a strong emphasis on preventing extreme right-wing racism in our society, and on combating it as vigorously as we combat any other kind of issue?” - December 2014 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

“Never let racism raise its ugly head, be it against Jews, Muslims or anybody else.” - January 2015 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

“Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and far-right racism have no place whatsoever in our society or our thinking.” - November 2015 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

“Surely this message must go out from all of us in the House today: none of us—we can say this together—will tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in any form in this country.” - December 2015 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

“We all need to calm our language and tone, and Members in all parts of the House must condemn the rise of racism in our society. “ - June 2016 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/…

He’s always championed women, not least by having a majority of them in his first Shadow Cabinet for the first time in history. http://www.independent.co.uk/…/jeremy-corbyn-more-women-app… -

Sometimes people get confused, or confuse on purpose Anti-Semitism with criticism of the Isreali state or support for a Two State Solution. Because Corbyn gives equal support to Palestine, some sources believe wrongly he ia anti-semite. When faced with the accusations of prejudice within his party unlike other leaders Corbyn (known for his own personal human rights record) launched the Chakrabarti Inquiry by the leading civil rights activist in the country.-- BOD -- 19:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn was obliged to set up the Chakrabarti Inquiry because the situation concerning antisemitism had gone beyond anything which had occurred in any of the other main UK parties. Numerous Labour MPs have condemned Corbyn alleging inaction on these issues, and it has been reported by many commentators and other journalists. There is nothing in the article about all this, and his supporters tendency to ignore it, or downplay it, is irrelevant to developing this article. Of course, Corbyn, or his office, make pro-forma condemnations of homophobic, racist or sexist abuse, but few in the PLP, outside his circle, find that to be enough. Like the politicians he is supposed to differ from, he has (allegedly) shown himself to be full of words rather than deeds. This point has been made in reliable sources too.

His decision to indulge in patronage by putting forward Shami Chakrabarti for a peerage has also been controversial. (What would his friend, Tony Benn, have to say about that?) Also ignored. Philip Cross (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Again you lack factual evidence for your insinuations and innuendo. -- BOD -- 00:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of racism in the Labour Party is discussed at Chakrabarti Inquiry. This is Paul (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Chakrabarti Inquiry is mentioned in the sidebar but not in the article itself. It is weird: regardless of what one thinks about Corbyn and the anti-Semitism issue, there should be some mention of it in the article. There's also very little or nothing about Israel/Palestine. The exact form which this should take, I leave it to people here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The is a seperate page Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn to which much that was on this page has been merged and moved to, maybe the link should be more prominent.-- BOD -- 22:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

When material is forked off to a separate page, there is usually a summary of it left on the main page. The other page does have a fairly long paragraph on Israel-Palestine, which is good. There's also some material on anti-Semitism on that page. Some of it should be summarized on this page, fairly and neutrally. I am not particularly happy with the part dealing with anti-Semitism on that page. Much of it is innuendo and horse-race style politics. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what people have been trying to do here as well, which is why it keeps getting removed. What we need is a proper discussion here to formulate something. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I moved the large amount of near duplicate material to the Political positions page and merged it where their was deviations, much of it several weeks ago. No one objected to the earlier moves. It is a waste of time to have editors working on large sections of duplicate material over multiple articles. As well as his Political positions, we also need to summarise material from last year's leadership campaign, such as the antisemitism issue, but the brief mention I added yesterday has been removed. The often dubious connections Corbyn has maintained over his career have continued to be a major part of the mainstream coverage about him. As other editors have said before, I do think some editors are being over zealous in cutting material which is critical of Jeremy Corbyn. If some reliable sources use "innuendo" about Corbyn, it is not unsuitable for inclusion, nor is it considered libellous, and we are only obliged to choose what is notable. Those who object to criticism of Corbyn being included are not approaching the issues with a neutral frame of mind. A tiny portion is included at present, but reliable sources are dominated by coverage of his reputed flaws. That many editors, I suspect, believe the media is biased against him is irrelevant to editing this article.

I quite agree that Israel/Palestine should be included in brief. The Hamas "friends" comments should be mentioned, plus his response to Krisnan Guru Murthy on Channel 4 News last year. and the fact that Corbyn practically lost his temper. A matter of interpretation perhaps, but it was reported as such. Corbyn's apparent inability to say the word "Israel" deserves a sentence too. Possible citations are out there. As appropriate to this article, the emphasis should be slanted to Corbyn's unique interventions on the subject. As his approval rating and opinion polls (with a handful of exceptions) are clear Labour under Corbyn is likely to badly loose a general election, any details about actual policies are entirely speculative. They are probably not of permanent relevance. I know his admirers are likely to reject the opinion polls, but such polls about Ed Miliband were much more positive. Philip Cross (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Frankly, almost any article which mentions Corbyn and antisemitism is liable to be accused of "innuendo". That is being used as a reason to disallow the issue being mentioned. Philip Cross (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion: these things can be fixed by writing a draft, either on the talkpage or in the draft space and asking people for comments. Many issues are easily fixed once we are talking about something concrete. Obviously your earlier attempt wasn't acceptable to people here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What prey was wrong about this brief addition. I then added Corbyn's self-defence. Another editor then removed this passage. If I thought other editor's were serious about adding such a passage to the article, rather than making objections, I might submit a draft to this page. The second part above adds a positve comment by Corbyn, which is not at all critical. But no other editor chose to modify my addition to something which might be acceptable to all. More than 120 editors have this page on their watchlist, and given the view statistics, many more must look at this page. So I draw my own conclusions. Philip Cross (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Part One: Corbyn is neither an anti semite or holocust denier, I think this sentence implies he is by association. Part Two: Is good & true.

Now to damn myself with a lousey excuse bit. I apologise for not contributing more positively to the actual article. Personally I suffer from a very low and variable mood that makes me feel unable to contribute actual solid stuff to this important biographical article. I do not consider myself intellectually qualified. I wish a wider range of editors would contribute and balance the article more. Different editors view the NPV from different angles and perspectives, helping to maintain a more genuine Neutral Point of View.-- BOD -- 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you object to in Part One reads as follows: "The issue of his association with alleged antisemites and Holocaust deniers was frequently raised during the campaign". (Emphasis added.) I did not type what you claim, and did not attempt to prove an allegation about Corbyn. I then used a proper citation to STV News which raises most of Corbyn's alleged dubious connections to avoid extending the passage any more. While your approval of part two is progress, it makes less sense without part one.

The issue is not guilt by association. Corbyn has explicitly defended people like Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah. Plus Hamas in his 2009 statements. For obvious legal reasons, no one I have attempted to cite has attempted to "prove" anything about Corbyn. Philip Cross (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Many Jewish intellectuals have defended Stephen Sizer, pointing out that he is not an anti-Semite. Corbyn did say that those criticising Sizer were politically motivated and were "intent on discrediting the excellent work that Stephen does in highlighting the injustices of the Palestinian Israeli situation...as part of a wider pattern of demonising those who dare to stand up and speak out against Zionism." Semitism and Zionism are no more the same as racism and being against the actions of any other state. Raed Salah is leading Palestinian political leader who had a legitimate involvement in the peaceful political dialogue of the Isreal-Palestinian situation. His supposed comments about the Holocust were made years after his meeting with Corbyn. What Corbyn has said - "Holocaust denial is vile and wrong. The Holocaust was the most vile part of our history. The Jewish people killed by the Nazi Holocaust were the people who suffered the most in the 20th century.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-answers-critics-ludicrous-and-wrong-anti-semitism-questions-10460206.html

Just because a politician is willing to meet with someone, does not mean that they share the other politician's views. Further if either of those persons you accused (lets forget the shallow wobbly alledgedly bit) where guilty as charged, it can not be acceptable to include in the wikipedia article of a seperate independent person a baseless accusation of McCarthyesque guilt by association without more solid evidence. Does Corbyn specifically anywhere say that he actually agrees with any anti semite or anti jewish viewpoint. Corbyn is guilty of a long record of support for all including Palestinian human rights which has led him to be wrongly accused of being an anti-Semite. -- BOD -- 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I'll guess one reason why people are objecting to your edit: it looks like an insinuation and Corbyn's own reply to these allegations is simply pro forma. To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, "Corbyn would say that, wouldn't he?": his response does not add any real information. Do we really want to go into the details of these alleged insinuations and give third party comments on the matter? And are they serious enough to be presented in the article in such detail? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new article

I'd like to propose starting a spinoff article titled Opposition leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, since there is quite a lot of information about that part of Corbyn's career contained in this article, and it is likely to continue to expand now that he has been re-elected. Such an article could, if created, provide a more comprehensive summary of Corbyn's time as opposition leader, while the information here could then be slimmed down, as has happened with Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, and help to keep the length at a manageable size. Initially the text would be copied over from here, but both articles would change and evolve over time. There are plenty of premiership of... articles, though we don't currently have any documenting an opposition leader's time in that office, but similar non-premiership pages have been created to help keep other articles as concise as possible, such as Home Office under Theresa May and Chancellorship of Gordon Brown. I've briefly touched on this idea elsewhere, in a discussion about a different topic, but thought I'd bring it here since this is the article talk page. I wouldn't want it to become a POV fork, although there's no reason why that should happen if people add it to their watchlists. Would Opposition leadership be an appropriate title, or is there a better one we could use? Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea by This is Paul, this could work well. An alternative title of the proposed article could be "Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn", not sure which would be better?77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Leadership win/media

Does the page really need quite such a large – and still-expanding, by the look of it – round up of media reaction and commentary about today's leadership victory, per the second para here? N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And now a single negative poll has been singled out and chucked in too, even though we currently have little in the way of detail about the actual poll, of Labour party members, that is supposedly the topic of the section. I'd also note that that poll, the Curtice comments and the Kettle op-ed are all from before the result was announced. Even if we think the point of WP sections is to cram them with as much negative passing comment as we can, rather than to explain the observable facts about the topic of that section, we could at least use ones made after the event, surely? I'm not just going to remove it all unilaterally, but I'm quite tempted. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What do you suggest should be cut? The John Curtice article and the BMG poll offer empirical evidence, in as much as polling can be, that Labour under Corbyn is unlikely to win the next election. The article now mentions, understandably from his position, that Corbyn disputed this interpretation in his speech today. So there is, in fact, a kind of balance between the two positions. At the close of this summer's sequence of events, a summary of the current situation, as the commentariat views it, seems to me to be valid. In practice, it is probable the latest leadership election will not resolve the situation, as reliable sources seem to imply, and the Labour rebels obviously wanted it to do. The one pro-Corbyn article I came across, by Owen Jones, is actually as equivocal as his quoted conclusion might suggest. Incidentally, the Wikipedia article about Jones now covers his evolving attitude towards Corbyn over the last year or so.Philip Cross (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Curtice and Kettle articles assume Corbyn would win. Why should the result today change attitudes in the wider population when Labour still has the same leader as last week? In the actual vote, Owen Smith won amongst pre-2015 Labour members, the under-24s and in Scotland. Aside from a handful of exceptions, rogue surveys perhaps, polls outside Labour's core support base have been negative about Corbyn all along. So I have not deliberately picked sources to make Corbyn look bad. Philip Cross (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rather than putting together a quotefarm we should be mentioning something about reactions to the result. For example, this report about people leaving the party following Corbyn's victory. This is Paul (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair point about people destroying their membership cards, but no one knows as yet how common it is likely to be. Paraphrasing can mean the overuse of words like "claimed" or "alleged", and if used in a logical sequence, quotes can flow into each other without misrepresenting what has been written by others. Philip Cross (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH I think the addition of the poll looks a bit clumsey. Opinion Polls may be good indicators but I dont think they (or opinion pieces by journalists) can "offer empirical evidence, in as much as polling can be, that Labour under Corbyn is unlikely to win the next election." The poll was also done prior to the result, so at the very least in the wrong section.-- BOD -- 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is rather important that the commentariat in reliable sources think Corbyn's supporters are delusional over the party's chances, insulting though some may find it. A near universal assumption in the mainstream media. In any case, the polls have tended to over-estimate the level of Labour support in the country since at least 1992, so are more likely to be over generous to the current Labour leadership, rather than being part of some conspiracy to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. Philip Cross (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's important perhaps if we were trying to create a summary of daily media comment about Corbyn, but my point is precisely that not much of this is important for an encyclopedic biography. It's more fundamental than being about balance or about which specific op-eds, or polls, should be included or not (although that is an issue too of course). The chronology point has been dealt with by moving the pre-result content, but it leaves the question of why we're picking out and highlighting individual examples of speculative day-to-day media commentary like this at all. Citing a broader analytical piece that looks across the media attitude as a whole is the way to reflect the point here. Plus as noted, we have all this commentary but the bare minimum about the actual result. N-HH talk/edits 09:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We already have a section about the supposed media bias against Corbyn. The comments about the leadership election not resolving anything are a conclusion for now, but could be removed in the near future when they are proved wrong, or correct, as the case may be. I removed the point Andrew Rawnsley made a few months ago about Labour's "selectorate" being wildly different from the wider electorate, because the latest polls and Corbyn's recent 'win' are a better demonstration of the validity of Rawnsley's, in my opinion self-evidently, accurate argument. In an case, Rawnsley is not alone in his viewpoint in the media. I do not see the commentary I added yesterday as merely being 'day to day', as a chapter in Labour's current internal friction has clearly ended. The question now is whether there will be a satisfactory compromise in the PLP leading to peace and harmony, or a renewal of the internal crisis in due course, and another challenge next year. As the issues are going to be live for some years, we should have in mind how the article might develop, or the article is liable to look ridiculous in the future. Philip Cross (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, which means there's even less need for this constantly updated commentary (and it's not about claiming "bias" as such, but about simply pointing out there is media hostility to him, without laying it all out in great detail with the implication that these commentators are perhaps "correct"). I appreciate the latest excerpts are from columns written in the light of (or just prior to) the second win, and therefore arguably add something beyond the standard day-to-day stuff, but it seems from your justification that including this kind of detail is about trying to "prove" which commentators are right in what they say about Corbyn or predicting what might happen under his leadership in the future. As suggested, that doesn't seem to have much to do with writing an encyclopedic biography. N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are any journalists out there suggesting Corbyn is heading for a working majority after the next election their comments would be worth adding too. Philip Cross (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Like I said, I'd prefer less journalistic speculation and comment, not more, regardless of what it says. Anyway .. N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Less journalist commentary would be good. Much of this Summer 2016 section could be neatly trimed, while maintaining political balance by copy editor.-- BOD -- 18:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn

I am going to create this page tomorrow by copying the leadership section from this page and adding a lede. I will leave a draft in my sandbox, feel free to comment here or there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic, let me know if you need any help. I went for Opposition leadership of Jeremy Corbyn because I had in mind a scenario where he becomes prime minister, in which case he'd still be leader of the Labour Party, but I'm happy with this suggestion. Opposition leadership could be a bit confusing, and we can always decide how to address the issue if he becomes PM. This is Paul (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

72KB...Gosh! This is Paul (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regards the initial lede...Corbyn kinda did a bit more than just 'survive' the leadership challenge from Owen Smith ;) -- BOD -- 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have created the article and changed "survive", thanks for the comment. I have split off some content to the new article, do people think more needs to go? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a go at expanding the lede when I get a chance over the next couple of days. This is Paul (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why only the Media and Growth in party members sections have been moved to the new article? and not the bulk of the rest.-- BOD -- 12:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I moved that as well as a small amount of the other subsection because they seemed to be the most obvious things which were related to Corbyn's leadership rather than Corbyn himself, I would like to remove more but I think we should have some discussion here first. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the rest, the whole section is 90% about Corbyn's leadership. I think the removal of those two subsections from the section, one positive, the other an analysis, leaves the current article even more unbalanced than it already is.-- BOD -- 13:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What other sections do you (or anyone else) think should be moved? Clearly a large chunk needs to go as this article is 130kb already and it looks like Corbyn will be leader for another several years. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest we rethink about the new page. Corbyns main page could be reduced by moving a large chunk of the Jeremy Corbyn#Summer 2016 leadership crisis could be folded into and merged with the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. This would be a lot easier to do, would reduce Wiki duplication and make that article a good one. If that is done the would be less need for the article atm for the article you have started.-- BOD -- 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

EU referendum

Is it true he voted to leave? (165.120.240.205 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

Do you have a source that suggests that, or are you just asking for the sake of it? If the former then add it below, if the latter then ask your question at WP:REFDESK. This is Paul (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is Paul is quite right in asking this, if this is to be included in the main text it will need an extremely reliable source.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Several Labour MPs have said Corbyn voted to leave the EU on 23rd June. (165.120.240.205 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

So it shouldn't be too hard for you to find a reference then. No? This is Paul (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris Bryant publicly said Corbyn voted to leave the EU: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/labour-mp-chris-bryant-accuses-jeremy-corbyn-of-secretly-voting/ (165.120.240.205 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

Any actual evidence that he did rather than just someone's speculation? This is Paul (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Votes in the UK held by secret ballot, so the only person who knows how Corbyn voted is Corbyn. User:This is Paul is right to say that to include Corbyn's voting preference in the article will need a reliable source that directly quotes Corbyn himself.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the Telegraph article linked to above reports aides pointing to a social media site where Corbyn wrote that he had voted to remain ("The claim was contested from Mr Corbyn’s aides who pointed to a message the Labour leader had sent on social media on polling day saying he had just voted for Remain.")     ←   ZScarpia   00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This would be interesting if true. However, the article does not link to the tweet, so how can we be sure that the tweet actually exists?77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Émigrée

Should not Jeremy Corbyn's current wife be called an immigrant rather than an émigrée? Surely this is proof of a continuous double standard. I did not edit this because my account is not used enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.254.13 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed the reference to Laura Alvarez describing her as being "Mexican-born". I would never use "immigrant" myself, it is pejorative and, as the couple married in Mexico, it is inappropriate to use the term émigré, which in any case is a word falling into disuse. Philip Cross (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Immigrant is most certainly not pejorative. Where on earth does that notion come from?? What is wrong with someone being an immigrant? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being an immigrant, but the word is often used in a derogatory manner. So best avoided in a context like this. Philip Cross (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)