Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Jeremy Corbyn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings all. I have recently found a more recent image of Jeremy Corbyn on Flickr that is public domain that I uploaded to Wikimedia commons. I am here to make the proposal of using this more recent image in the infobox over the older one that is currently in use and would like to hear other editors’ opinions. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I am afraid I think just because it is more up to date, does not make it better. This has merits but half his face is in shadow? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We could ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop for help with the shadow. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

yup certainly if someone improves it, maybe i and others might change our view. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion of this new image from November 2019 in the info box. The 2017 Parliament image should be moved into the lede and replaced with this image. JLo-Watson (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the shadows? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Still think it is a better image; however, your suggestion above is a valid one which I would potentially support.JLo-Watson (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not an improvement over the current image, As noted above you can only see half his face whereas with the current image you obviously see all of his face. –Davey2010^Talk 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support as a more recent image, but only if it can be changed to remove or tone down the shadow, and made less dark generally. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

JamesVilla44 has reverted my edit to the lead, which would've added "and a 2018 poll found over 85 percent of British Jews believed him to be anti-semitic"^[1] at the end of the second paragraph, on the grounds it violated WP:NPOV. I personally disagree with this; it merely states that a poll found over 85% of Jews believe him to be personally anti-semitic, not whether they are correct or not. Indeed, we actually have the poll within the body of the article itself - agreed in Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_20#An_alternative_version_of_the_antisemitism_section.

My logic for adding it to the lead rather than leaving it buried in the body is that the current sentence in the lead ("He has condemned antisemitism, but has been criticised for his past associations and responses to allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party.") only mentions criticism of his responses to antisemitism allegations and 'past associations', and does not make it explicit that he is believed by some to be personally antisemitic. This seems like a glaring omission if there's a poll of British Jews finding that over 85% believe him to be personally anti-semitic. I don't know if there's an example of any similarly famous figure believed by a similarly high proportion of any ethnic group to be racist towards them, and doesn't have that belief mentioned in the lead? WelshDude2 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've further reviewed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." On biographies of living persons specifically it says "Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm". From this I'm confident my initial analysis above was correct, so if no one raises any objections in the next 24 hours or so, I'll repeat the edit (possibly amended to say '86%' rather than 'over 85%', like in the body).WelshDude2 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WelshDude2. This is relevant and well-sourced information which absolutely belongs in the lead.Ben133 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle is a biased, right-wing, anti-Corbyn source. If you're going to cite it, at least give some context that it also spent years smearing Corbyn with false allegations. 213.205.194.224 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't just emphasise one position in the lede. The most you could say is that the latter stage of his leadership saw him face accurasations of anti-seminitism which he denied. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources, not his denials. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And there are reliable sources which confirm the denials and counter opinions - lede summarises the article, it doesn't cherrypick -----Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That passage in lede was the balanced consensus worked out by the many editors who were active on this page during the time he led the labour party. It took many contributions on both sides to finalise ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bodney and Snowded's points. Davide King (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For one thing there are not ‘denials’ - there are no reliable sources questioning the reliability of the poll as far as I know. It is a matter of debate whether Corbyn is an anti-semite, but it is a fact that a poll found 86% of British Jews believed he was.

For comparison on ‘the most we could say’, another current prominent politician (I’m not saying their name because I don’t wish to compare Corbyn to them, I’m just pointing out the usage of a lede elsewhere) says “Many of [their] comments and actions have been described as racially charged or racist”, with no mentions of their denials. I don’t believe it is “cherrypicking” to highlight an objective measure of what British Jews think about an anti-Semitism controversy. I think with this clause removed, the lede fails to meet the guidelines set out in Wikipedia’s manual of style (see my earlier post), because ‘reliably sourced material’ about an ‘encyclopaedically relevant controversy’ is ‘suppressed in the lead’ - as I stated previously, without it there is no mention in the lead that Corbyn himself has been accused of antisemitism, not just criticised for his associations and issues within Labour. From what I can see, the only grounds for the poll’s removal according to the guidelines would be if you argued it was being ‘allowed to overwhelm’ - which would be laughable given how little space it takes up and how little is devoted to allegations of anti-semitism within the lede. It does not come close to being able to ‘stand on its own’ as the guidelines say it should.

If anyone thinks the lede needs further work to be able to stand on its own, then please make suggestions for what should be added and/or reworded. But removing the poll adds nothing - it did not take up enough space to overwhelm - and takes away a lot. Are readers going to be better informed with it included in the lede, or with it removed? WelshDude2 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Something that you and Ben133 should note is the ARBPIA notice at the top of this talkpage. Accounts with fewer than 500 edits, which applies to both of you[1][2], may not add or edit material relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which, from one point of view, just about anything related to the Labour antisemitism controversy does, The Jewish Chronicle, which commissioned the poll, being heavily involved in creating and stoking that, being fined for libel and heavily criticised by the IPSO for its editorial standards in the process. The prohibition extends to talkpages.     ←   ZScarpia   07:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a RS questioning the reliability of the poll then I suggest you provide it; I'd be very surprised if you found one however, as the poll was conducted by Survation, a reputable polling company and in fact the only pollster to (very slightly) OVER-estimate how close Corbyn's Labour would come to the Conservatives in 2017 rather than underestimate them. The poll is considered good enough to be in the body of the article, and it wasn't me who put it there.

I'd heavily resist the idea that any discussion that involves Jews or ant-semitism is automatically related to Israel-Palestine. I'd also point out that despite what you've said, the policy is clear it does not apply to constructive comments in Talk pages in any case.WelshDude2 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making me revisit the latest version of the ARBPIA sanctions, which do allow non-ECP editors to make constructive comments or suggestions on talkpages. There remains a contradiction between the wording of the notices, which refer. as at the top, to pages, and the new rulings. I suspect that the intention behind the current wording was to allow any very important points to be raised, not permit involovement in nitty-gritty such as discussions about what should go in the lead. Perhaps an admin would like to comment on where the line where involvement becomes illegitimate lies?

Factually, there's no question that a poll was run and that, extrapolated from the 741-odd respondents, the meaning attached to it is not unrealistic. The question is whether detail about it is important enough to be separately mention in the introduction. Personally, I think that it would need to have been much more widely discussed in sources for that to be answered in the affirmative.

Nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that 'any' discussion involving Jews or antisemitism automatically falls in an area under the jurisdiction of the ARBPIA rulings. However, there are reasons why the current one would. Note that I specifically mentioned the so-called Labour antisemitism controversy and commented on how it looks from one point of view. Somebody at some stage clearly considered that Corbyn's career had a strong enough relationship with the Palestine-Israel conflict to post the ARBPIA notice at the head of the current article.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The point I am raising is that the lede as it stands does not include reliably sourced information about a relevant controversy, and I don't think anyonce could argue it currently says enough to stand on its own. Both of these things are agiainst Wikipedia's guidelines. That's the issue, and I think it an important one and not 'nitpicking'. My suggested solution is the inclusion of the poll; if you have additional or alternative suggestions, let's hear them.

If your issue is you don't believe the poll is cited enough in the sources by the way, here is the poll being discussed in Haaretz, here is a similar poll from a few months later (which found 87% rather than 86) being mentioned in Newsweek and here the poll is discussed in the Washington Post. Isn't that level of international attention enough? WelshDude2 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The first two articles mention the poll as part of a wider discussion. In any case, the Haaretz article is an opinion piece and so not reliable for normal citation of facts. I'm not registered on the Washington Post site and so can't read the article, though, from the title, it looks as though it too mentions the poll as part of a wider discussion. Let alone supporting the inclusion of the detail you want in the introduction to the Jeremy Corbyn article, if you were to try to write a separate brief summary on each of the articles you've just listed, you'd probably omit it.     ←   ZScarpia   16:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting spin. The 'wider discussion' is - in all those articles and many more - about widespread fear within the Jewish community about Corbyn and a widespread belief he was an anti-semite. Perhaps you'd be happy to add a sentence saying that? (This discussion, as I've said, might be more productive if you offered up suggestions so I don't have to guess.) But the only real differences I can see between saying 'Corbyn is/was widely believed within the British Jewish community to be anti-semitic' and saying 'a 2018 poll found 86% of British Jews believed Corbyn to be anti-semitic" is that the former is an interpretation and the latter an objective (and not remotely misleading) statement of fact, and the latter is therefore far more informative to the reader. For that reason, by the way, I would include it in a summary of any of those articles, even if you wouldn't, because a significant part of the information in each article - to take the Newsweek one for example, the 3 Janner-Klausner paragraphs where she explains the concerns, the 4 where Dave Rich discusses the level consensus within the Jewish community and much of the scene-setting done by the journalist throughout - all of that information is effectively covered and communicated in just one sentence if you mention the poll. Given we have a fact that can, on its own, immediately give the reader an understanding of what is believed in one side of such a prominent controversy and how many people believe it, and the information they need to decide what weight they should place on the controversy as a whole, shouldn't we use it to do exactly that?

I hope, by the way, that you don't feel I've been rude throughout this discussion. I don't intend to be disrespectful; I just do (obviously) believe I'm right about this and I'm not going to be shy about putting my side of the argument forward. WelshDude2 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Despite WelshDude2's claim, mentioning the poll without explanation implies that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. But it's relevant that only 14% of British Jews voted Labour when Ed Milliband was the leader. (It went up to 15% under Corbyn.) So there are probably other reasons why British Jews would have a negative opinion of Corbyn. That's why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for interpretation. TFD (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If the reader knows 86% of British Jews believe Corbyn is anti-semitic, but takes the view they are wrong, that is an informed opinion they are entitled to. But to suppress facts because you don't like their implications is wrong (not least because different people take different implications from facts). If you think the poll should be accompanied by an 'explanation' to give a fuller picture, then I'm sure that's possible.

Incidentally, I don't think your figures are correct. Here says 22%, not 14%, voted Labour under Ed Miliband's leadership, and here, from a month before the 2019 election says only 7% were considering voting for Corbyn's Labour. WelshDude2 (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't see your link, but a New Statesman article says, "By [the end of Miliband's leadership], in 2015, polling showed just 14 per cent of Jewish voters were willing to back Labour (just one per cent more than its poll rating under Corbyn ahead of the 2017 election)."[3] I can find the actual data for how they actually voted, but that should be sufficient. Labour had similar percentages before Tony Blair. Corbyn's leadership had no effect on Jewish support for Labour.

Note that people cannot form informed opinions using incomplete information. That's perhaps why people who get their news from Fox, and likely Sky, the Daily Mail, etc. are less informed than people who do not follow the news at all. It would be like a judge sending the jury out after only hearing the prosecution case. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality that requires us to provide complete information. And we determine what weight to apply to the various aspects of that information by using reliable secondary sources.

TFD (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the links, apologies for the incompetence. Maguire appears to be saying Labour's support under Miliband was 14% among whereas Survation says it was 22%. He also says it fell (not rose) by one point in 2017. And since the article is published in 2018 it doesn't provide anything about the 2019 election, where support fell to below 7%. I can't find the poll Maguire is referring to, but in any case what we're arguing about is whether Labour's support among Jews fell from 22% to 7% under Corbyn or from 14% to 7%. WelshDude2 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As 'balance', I offer an Al Jazeera opinion piece commenting on the Survation poll by Tony Greenstein (which refers to a Spectator article defending Corbyn by Geoffrey Alderman and the book "Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief"):
Al Jazeera - Tony Greenstein - Is Jeremy Corbyn a 'threat' to British Jews?, 07 December 2019: Corbyn's opponents cannot defeat his political programme so they attack his character with spurious allegations. ... A November poll by the Jewish Chronicle showed that 87 percent of British Jews consider Corbyn to be an anti-Semite and 47 percent would "seriously consider" emigrating if he wins on December 12. Some may assume given that such an overwhelming majority of British Jews believe Corbyn to be an anti-Semite, he must be. This, however, is not the case. As revealed by Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller's recently published book "Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief", between Corbyn's election in June 2015 and March 2019 there had been 5,497 stories on the subject of Corbyn, anti-Semitism and the Labour Party across Britain's eight most popular national newspapers. Most of these reports were hostile to the Labour leader. Moreover, Jewish publications like the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph also repeatedly filled their pages with reports accusing the Jewish leader and the supporters of his party of being anti-Semitic.
    ←   ZScarpia   08:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Greenstein's point is in the extract you've quoted; the switch to talking about media reporting seems like a non-sequiter. What you appear to have just posted is a source stating that the RSs have repeatedly suggested Corbyn is anti-semitic...

Nevertheless, if you want to add the poll to the lede with a passage afterwards saying something like, "others maintain he is not anti-semitic", citing that Al Jazeera piece, I'm happy with that. Although do you really want to cite an op-ed from Greenstein, given he was expelled by Labour during Corbyn's leadership for anti-semitism? WelshDude2 (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing information. The proper place for presenting and discussing the poll is in the body of the article. It is sufficient that the lead says that accusations of anti-Semitism from Blairites, Conservatives and even the BNP were made and denied by Corbyn supporters. We don't want to get into a detailed analysis of the evidence against Corbyn and various ways of interpreting it.

The reason for the different figures for Miliband among Jewish voters is that he had 22% support when he became leader and 15% percent when he left, which is where the party was when Thatcher was leader. Blair had been able to appeal to suburban conservatives including British Jews, but their support was lost under his successors. TFD (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with TFD. With similar arguments one should cherrypick academic studies showing the Labour Party's low profile as having anti-Semites in their ranks, to spin the lead. That detail however is not appropriate. Our greatest historian of the Holocaust Raul Hilberg was asked about the much bruited New antisemitism sweeping the world('s newspapers, every now and then since the 1970s). Well he had direct family experience of the phenomenon before WW2, and shrugged off what newspapers kept obsessing about, with the one liner:'It's like picking up a pebble from the past and throwing it at a window'. We still have to come to terms with the massive power of media over what people think or imagine to be the case (he newspaper sensationalism that challenges WP:Recentism), rather than what they actually experience in their daily lives. We'll only get a clear picture when the dust-storms of media hype settle, and historians with the long view re-examine this.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

“It is sufficient that the lede says...” - but it doesn’t say anything of the sort currently! It doesn’t mention anyone, Blairite or BNP, accusing Corbyn of anti-semitism, it just vaguely alludes to him being ‘criticised’. So even by your standards the lede is currently not fit for purpose. (And I do still think your standards are insufficient - for one thing the BNP weren’t accusing Corbyn of anti-semitism, they were praising him for it! As I said other Wikipedia ledes are happy to say the subject’s actions and words as being “described as racially charged or racist”, without feeling the need to paint such descriptions as coming from political opponents, or even to mention that their supporters deny the accusations)

If you follow the link I previously cited, you’ll find the 22% figure comes from April 2015, not from 2010 when Miliband’s leadership began. WelshDude2 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The man no longer holds a leadership position - or does this courtesy style follow him for life now by custom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.218.149 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Corbyn will retain this title for life now. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the "Right Honourable" title is his permanently now, and should not be edited out.Ben133 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes; once a Privy Councillor, always a Privy Councillor, so always entitled to the style "The Right Honourable" unless he chooses to resign as such. (though, generally, people only do that if convicted of a criminal offence). A1octopus (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well we will have to see what happens after the recent events. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

'Ghandi' peace prize - fake news. The prize he won had nothing to do with Ghandi nor the Ghandi family or its affiliates. It was a left wing fringe organisation filled with Corbyn fans that chose the Ghandi name to provide the illusion of legitimacy. The entry in Wikipedia should be corrected Spedialist (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

False in every respect. The Gandhi Foundation was founded long before Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, and is primarly a pacifist organisation, following in the footsteps of Ghandi. Faith-based opposition to war is an important component of its work and philosophy. A stark contrast with the warmongering liars and fraudsters who have worked hard to try and destroy a man of honesty, compassion and integrity. --NSH001 (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems more legit to me than the Nobel Peace Prize handed to warmongers like Kissinger and Obama. Red Society 01 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say it's more "legit" than the Nobel Peace Prize, but you are right that there are some glaring examples, probably made under political/diplomatic pressure, where the Nobel prize is inappropriate. Fortunately these examples are, well, glaringly obvious and so easily discounted. The rest are, generally, well deserved. --NSH001 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I love the charge "fake news" it always reminds me of the deeply wise sayings of his splendid almightiness Don Trump. We will have the best Wikipedia page, it will be the greatest page ever. No the Gandhi International Peace Award is a honour issued since 2001 by the registered charity the Gandhi Foundation, a non violence organisation which seeks to further the work of Mahatma Gandhi through a variety of educational events and activities. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Mr Corbyn has been the party's most disastrous leader ever—not just useless like George Lansbury and Michael Foot, who led the party to electoral disaster in 1935 and 1983 respectively, but positively malign."^[1] I am suggesting that this information be incorporated to this article. Benjamin (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not very encyclopaedic though is it, citing an *opinion piece*? Stick to the facts, not some column writer's personal stance. 213.205.194.224 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering that The Economist is a very high-quality source, I agree.Ben133 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Economist is a heavily neoliberal biased source with a bone to pick with people who do not wish to pretend it's the 80s and continue fighting stagflation obsessively for all eternity as the world collapses around us. It is a joke of a source. It is one of the least reliable sources in media, just the regurgitation of the desires of the transatlantic elite, which confuses some deeply mediocore people into thinking they're intelligent for reading it. This is an opinion article, from a joke of a source for extremely mediocore neoliberal middle managers.2601:140:8900:61D0:51C0:CDA6:F121:26EF (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation given is incorrect if it refers to the UK edition, where the relevant article, a Bagehot column (currently written by Adrian Wooldridge[4]), appears on page 24, not 46. The column's title and subtitle are "The return of the opposition" and "Labour’s new leader should beware of “war socialism”". It was written as the the result of the last Labour leadership election was about to be announced. A longer quote: "Sir Keir, if indeed it is him, will enjoy two substantial advantages from the get-go. The first, and most important, is that he’s not Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Corbyn has been the party’s most disastrous leader ever—not just useless like George Lansbury and Michael Foot, who led the party to electoral disaster in 1935 and 1983 respectively, but positively malign. His failure to throw his party’s weight behind the Remain campaign contributed significantly to Britain’s decision to leave the eu, which most of the membership opposed. His refusal to meet Theresa May half-way during the dying days of her administration killed off any chance of a soft Brexit. His extreme politics and sanctimonious style drove traditional Labour voters into Boris Johnson’s arms. The second is that the Labour Party is tired of failing. The lessawful-than-expected defeat of 2017 persuaded the faithful that what they needed was more effort rather than fresh thought. The catastrophic failure of 2019 dispelled that illusion and reconciled all but fanatics to the idea that politics is the art of the possible. Sir Keir’s sustained lead means that he has been able to avoid making pledges to various factions and will take over with a blank sheet of paper and a powerful mandate. There’s a widespread view that the epidemic has provided Sir Keir with a third advantage: a political environment that is shifting sharply leftward."     ←   ZScarpia   07:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the following extract form the EHRC Report:

Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate [footnote omitted] criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law. [Emphasis added]

I know we need to avoid bias, but it's important to include factual information that the media doesn't include.

The Report explictly permits discussions of the scale of anti-semitism within the Party, and I think the article needs to reflect this fact.

If someone could include the above extract from the Report as a footnote in the intro paragraph where it says "for saying that the scale of antisemitism within the Labour Party had been overstated for political reasons" it would be very much appreciated.

GibbNotGibbs (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

both the Skwarkbox and the Canary have linked Corbyn’s suspension and that quote from the report. Unfortunately we can’t use the Canary or Skwark as a source anymore :-(. Not sure about other sources. Burrobert (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

yes as Burrobert refers to, Wikipedia relies on what are considered reliable secondary sources, rather than the primary source, and that acceptable secondary sources in politics mostly have a bias which do not always include what some might consider the facts.

However the Guardian does report The response to the EHRC report shows Labour's infighting never stopped The left has highlighted that the EHRC report itself says members who “express their opinions on internal party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the party, based on their own experience and within the law” are protected by article 10 of the Human Rights Act. As well as disputing the basis of the suspension, Corbyn’s allies are questioning whether the correct process was followed. I wonder if this should be in the lead or the article, in the lead it maybe needs to be more briefly written. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC) <~:: ~ (While I could add the citation I cant make the changes to the text myself today as I have reverted once already today)

Unfortunately I did not spot that this was an opinion piece. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It should only be in the lead if in the body, not the other way around. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait until reliable sources cover this, especially given that the report also says "Furthermore, speech that is within the scope of the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 may still be restricted, or sanctioned, where it is proportionate to do so". Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be backed by a reliable secondary source and yes this should only be in the lead if its in the body of the article ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC) edited ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that extract from the report is misleading when taken out of context. For a fuller understanding you need to read page 110, when it's explaining why it found that Pam Bromley's comments constituted harassment; "We recognise Pam Bromley’s right, under Article 10 of the ECHR, to express opinions about her own experience of the presence or scale of antisemitism in the Labour Party, within the bounds of the law, as we explain in Chapter 3. However, her posts go beyond this by repeatedly saying that allegations of antisemitism were fabricated. (emphasis mine) So by claiming other people were fabricating such allegations, she was stepping outside the legal bounds of talking about her own experience. Similarly, Corbyn did not just talk about its own experience of the scale of anti-semitism but actively claimed it had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party." Once you claim other people are lying, Article 10 is no longer relevant. (I imagine Skwawkbox and the Canary didn't explain any of this, which is precisely why they are not considered RSs) Personally I'd prefer for there to be a section in the body of the article explaining this, but no RSs have considered the subject worthy of discussion and so Wikipedia policy, quite rightly given we have no other objective criteria, is that it does not merit inclusion. WelshDude2 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• “Skwawkbox and the Canary didn't explain any of this, which is precisely why they are not considered RSs”. The latest discussions about the reliability of The Canary and Skwark occurred prior to the release of the EHRC report so the two events are unconnected.
• If the Skwawkbox and the Canary “didn't explain any of this” it may have been because they didn’t get around to consulting you. Has anyone else put forward your theory about why Corbyn’s statement isn’t covered under Article 10 of the ECHR?

Burrobert (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "shows precisely why they are not considered RSs". I think it's less that they didn't check with me, and more that they didn't get round to asking themselves the question "how come Pam Bromley's actions were unlawful then?", or to press ctrl+F to search for "article 10" within the report, which would have led to relevant section above. Or maybe they had read it, but didn't let it get in the way of their narrative - I don't suppose we'll ever actually know. WelshDude2 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

While Corbyn has had his Labour membership suspension lifted he still hasn't had the Labour whip returned, could someone update the Infobox to say this? C. 22468 Talk to me 14:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is some disagreement about the process surrounding this. Some members of the PLP say that Corbyn regained the whip automatically once his party membership was restored. These members state that Starmer's decision was another withdrawal of the whip rather than a refusal to readmit him to the PLP. Whatever the background, it is clear that he is not currently a member of the PLP. Burrobert (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes but as a footnote rather than parentheses which I will do. Alex (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will update the lead to: On the political left of the Labour Party, he ideologically identifies as a socialist and democratic socialist. If anyone has any objections, they can post them here but I would ask them to read the above relevant discussion first. Alex (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The Labour Party ideologically identifies as socialist and democratic socialist. See Socialism (Tony Blair 1994) and Clause IV of the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, yes, that is redundant and pushing a left-wing POV I happen to agree with that those to their right are not socialists but, as you correctly noted, they have a different conception of socialism, which is nonetheless in line with the definition outlined by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. Davide King (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is 5 years out of date, and the Parliamentary Library has data available up until mid-late 2019, rather than just for the first year of JC's leadership.

I am not sure about how to go about updating a separate Wiki graphic, and as I have not contributed to this article in the past I will just raise the point here.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.55.45 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Missing word...change "Corbyn received widespread from Constituency Labour Parties" to "Corbyn received widespread support from Constituency Labour Parties" Boogie til you drop (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 04:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogie til you drop (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There appears to have been an attempt to unilaterally decide the Jewish Chronicle should not be used as a source. I'm sceptical of this - note the previous discussion on this page where it was decided the Morning Star could still be used, with two users explicitly agreeing to it on the logic that it was "no more partisan than the Jewish Chronicle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_16#RfC_on_use_of_Morning_Star_as_a_source). Doesn't make sense to me to then turn around and ban the JC WelshDude2 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

JC is Jewish Chronicle right, not Jeremy Corbyn? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There have been a few comments stating that the Jewish Chronicle is biased and partisan in relation to Jeremy. I think that means any use of it should be attributed and pass a weight test. Its use in Jeremy's bio should be assessed on a case by case basis. Is there something it has reported that is not available elsewhere? Burrobert (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and has high standards of journalism. To the extent it has any leaning of its own in the way that any newspaper does, this can be accounted for in the prose of what is being cited, e.g. 'The Jewish Chronicle reported that...'Zythe (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think a website that writes/hosts articles such as this or this, or this can be deemed an acceptable source, I despair. ItsKesha (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia aims to judge sources on their reliability, and it defines an unreliable source as one that, for example, fabricates quotes. Are you claiming that any of the quotes in those articles are fabricated? Or anything similar? I don't believe that Wikipedia gives editors the right to block sources because they host or hold opinions we disagree with. (It is worth noting that since the first link you posted is an opinion piece, it wouldn't count as a RS anyway)WelshDude2 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If editors think that the Jewish Chronicle should not be considered reliable, I think they would have to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Its wide use on WP constitutes a de facto consensus for reliability. Two RSN discussions a decade ago ruled it reliable and subsequent mention in other RSN discussions indicate it is generally considered reliable. So, unless you can get a new consensus overturning this at RSN present consensus that it is can be used a source should remain in place. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe you guys have done a fantastic job in keeping this Wiki page accurate and impartial, which must be confusing and difficult at times.

My only objection which, I believe it's already been discussed, is the use of The JC as a source.

You guys have a difficult job in terms of this page, and you've all done and doing it well.

Happy Christmas Wowbob1234 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. The JC is a problematic and biased source for Jeremy and any statements it makes about him should be attributed. Given that JC has lost 3 or 4 defamation cases over the last year or so, it is becoming a bit unreliable in general. If you consider it to be an unreliable source you can request it be discussed at the Reliable sources notice board. This could lead to it being treated as unreliable or having restrictions placed upon its use, depending on what consensus is achieved there. Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing context which is important.

"Scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party."

The Guardian citation used has had an correction regarding the subject and therefore should be removed or updated. Wowbob1234 (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe it would better to include the full part of the statement so full context can be understood.

"“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated." Wowbob1234 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes the Guardian article was amended after the Skwawkbox challenged it. Skwawk gives the details in its article[[5]] which unfortunately we can't use here. The main point is that Corbyn's was saying that "political opponents and the media" were responsible for "overstating the scale of antisemitism in the Labour party". Our article is not quite accurate and should include a fuller quote as you suggest. Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to all this, is there any reason why the wiki page has has not been amended with this correction. Wowbob1234 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what caused the hold-up. I'll give it a try. What do you think? Burrobert (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's better, it gives people the full context. Wowbob1234 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Endless debate about whether his quotes can be made to look less damaging, but a distinct lack of a reference to his now suing the Labour party in a scorched earth policy... 81.140.238.223 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

His suit against the Labour Party can be included. Burrobert (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get some consensus on the infobox image change from Jeremy Corbyn election infobox 2.jpg to Official portrait of Jeremy Corbyn crop 2, 2020.jpg since we supposed to do so according to a hidden editors' message which was removed in a previous edit? Alex (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has been done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

https://wwww.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13946769/piers-corbyn-arrested-covid-conspiracy-pamphlet-vaccinations/amp/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9223311/amp/Covid-conspiracy-theorist-Piers-Corbyn-arrested-Auschwitz-leaflets.html

Corbyn's brother arrestation.--Daddy michel (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't generally use tabloids like The Sun. The Daily Mail is a deprecated source re WP:DAILYMAIL and is "generally prohibited" per an RFC and "should not be used or trusted for any claim or purpose." But your suggestion about "arrestation" belongs over at Talk:Piers Corbyn. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Corbyn redirects here and there is no note it could refer to other people, could we add use Template:Redirect suggesting people see Corbyn (name) if they did not intend to land at this page? Fixing26 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing26, that sounds like a good idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing26, thanks for doing with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the opening heading, and should be removed it has two links, one of which is an article about a study whose link is broken. The other is of dubious values and directly contradicts itself. All of the sections for this read like it is from bitter supporters of Corbyn, ignores the reality of a partistan press, and reads very much like what some extreme Trump supporters say about the American media. Corbyn like Trump got negative press because of their own actions and being the leader of one of the two major parties in their respective country. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• By "opening heading", do you mean "Media coverage"? The heading does not mention bias. If there are other media related issues, then these can also be added under that heading.
• I count 13 separate references for the section so the issue of media bias is well covered and the opening line ("Analyses of domestic media coverage of Corbyn have found it to be critical or antagonistic") does seem to be an accurate summary of the 13 references.
• If any of our links are broken, you should look for it in the archive and add a tag to the reference.
• "Corbyn like Trump got negative press because of their own actions and being the leader of one of the two major parties in their respective country". The part about Trump is irrelevant to Corbyn. However, if there are sources which say this about Corbyn, then add them to the section.

Burrobert (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By heading I mean this "media coverage of Corbyn has often been hostile and misrepresented his views.[4][5]" It origninally said numerous before, but I changed to some cause two sources if not numerous. [5] leads to an independent article, which than links to a source that it broken. Numerous sources link back to the LSE survey, which to my mind is a very poor study. Trump was used as a compairson. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t realise you were referring to a sentence in the leading section. Generally we don’t need references in the leading section as that section is meant to summarise the body, which is where references occur. The sentence you are referring to is a summary of the section headed “Media coverage” which contains the 2 references you mention and 11 others. Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No Problem. My main issue is that most of the sources all ultimately link back to the LSE report, whose findings, I think are very questionable and of dubious value. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, there are strong subjective feelings both ways on what is important. Somehow a neutral balance of the different viewpoints must be presented. The LSE report wasn't the only detailed source critical of the news source coverage of the Corbyn-era Labour Party. There are, for instance, Karl Sabbagh's 'The Antisemitism Wars' and Philo, Berry, Schlosberg, Lerman and Miller's 'Bad News for Labour'.     ←   ZScarpia   15:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

We currently describe Corbyn as a democratic socialist in the infobox and write that he "idealogically identifies as a democratic socialist". We don't have a source for the infobox statement and have two sources for the second. Of those two sources, the Herald Scotland quotes Corbyn as saying "I would describe myself as a Socialist". It doesn't mention democratic socialism. The Atlantic source says "Corbyn is a self-described “socialist” or “democratic socialist". It links to the Herald Scotland article above to support its statement. So, as far as I can tell, we have no source which supports the infobox or lead description of Corbyn's idealogical position. I suggest changing both to Socialist. Burrobert (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this was discussed in the past, if you look in the talkpage archives. I am not saying that your reasoning is wrong, just that other people may have not seen it the same way at the time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. The most recent discussion was at Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_22#Democratic_socialist where there was a consensus to describe Corbyn as both socialist and democratic socialist in the lead. I have edited the lead to implement that consensus. However:

• The discussion was not an RfC so that consensus can be changed without the need for an RfC
• The discussion did not apply to the description in the infobox.

So I suggest changing the description in the lead and infobox to "socialist" based on my first post. Any thoughts?

Burrobert (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's bizarre to describe someone who ia a member of and former leader of a socialist party that self-identifies as a "democratic socialist party" in this way. It's called the Labour Party after all. We don't do this for other politicians. Also during the previous discussion, we were under the misapprehension that Corbyn had been expelled from Labour, when in fact he had been suspended and has since been reinstated (although the whip has not been restored.) TFD (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What is your preferred description of Corbyn in the info box and lead? Burrobert (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I would omit description of ideology in the info-box and leave out "he ideologically identifies as a socialist and democratic socialist" from the lead. TFD (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable first step. The label "Democratic socialist" is not supported by any references and does not appear in the body at all, so should be removed. Articles for other British socialist politicians (Clement Attlee, Michael Foot) don't mention "socialist" in the lead or infobox, which may indicate the way to go. On the other hand Wikipedia has no rules. Whether we choose to use the label "socialist" in the lead and/or infobox could then be discussed. Burrobert (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The first statement you made here was in favour of making clear that he identifies as a socialist, as opposed to a democratic socialist. But now you're in favour of neither. There seems to be a massive shift of definitions in this section, despite some sourcing to support any (or all) of the definitions. We should really rely on reliable secondary sourcing and not personal preference here, which no offense, seems to be a factor. Not saying it's intentional, but we need something a bit more solid than personal preference for sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean an editors personal preference or Jeremys? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a see also link to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party in the Leadership of the Labour Party (2015–2020) section? I added this with an edit, but this was reverted by ItsKesha with the edit summary "nah". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Read the EHRC report please. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What does the EHRC report have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. ItsKesha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You have not made any point other than "nah", and that does not prove or disprove anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My point has been proven because you haven't even read the EHRC report. Because if you had, you'd know why your suggestion is nonsense. ItsKesha (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well then why don't you explain? Or is it because your removal was nonsense? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You want me to explain a 130 page report for you? Also I notice you aren't adding such a link to Starmer's page, interesting and non-agenda based stuff. ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think you can explain the report then try. I see no reason to add such a link to Starmer, which is article about a list of people with a surname. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh right. I see. I get it. You were lampooning me. It was a simple lampoon. ItsKesha (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not lampooning you. This article is under WP:1RR, so I came here to discuss as per WP:BRD. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So can you explain why you are pretending not to know who Keir Starmer is? ItsKesha (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This talkpage is for discussing Jeremy Corbyn's article. Please stay on topic, and whether something is in the article Starmer or Keir Starmer is is irrelevant unless decided by WP:Consensus. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to discuss the inclusion of information or links on pages of consecutive leaders of the same political party? Please don't reply to this, I know you're a WUM. ItsKesha (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't reply if you revert. What is a WUM even? Are you just trying to use random acronyms like when you brought up EHRC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Brian R Hunter please discuss your revert here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Per "See also" section, see also links below in the see also section, not at the beginning of other article sections. It seems anyway like more of a tendentious than constructive suggestion. TFD (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the WP:HATNOTE, {{See also}}, not a link for a see also section. It is not tendentious it is a constructive/serious suggestion. I would expect somewhere there to be a link to that article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A better approach then would be to include a link in the paragraph that discusses anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. By putting the see also link at the top, it implies that anti-Semitism was the most significant aspect of Corbyn's leadership. Even his most bitter opponents don't say that. TFD (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes that sounds like a better idea. I was not saying my initial suggestion was the best place to put and that am immune from criticism, just the fact that I think it should be in somewhere. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you be happy for me to put in now? Or do you want to wait for views from others? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The link to another article (antisemitism) should be from some statement about this in this article. That is it expands on something that is said. It is wrong to put arbitrary links in 'see also' or headings. Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What statement do you suggest? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a detailed Novara Media article by Oliver Eagleton about the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party. Oliver Eagleton is an editor at New Left Review. Novara Media was judged not to be a reliable source, which editors should bear in mind. However a book by Eagleton, "The Starmer Project," will be published by Verso in May 2022 and I should think that his Novara Media article points towards what it will say about Corbyn's suspension.

Novara Media - Oliver Eagleton - Here’s What Really Happened When Labour Suspended Corbyn, 27 July 2021.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed: In July 2019, Corbyn announced Labour's policy was now that there must be a referendum on any Brexit deal, including the deal Labour would attempt to negotiate if it entered government, and that the party would campaign for Remain against any Tory Brexit.[262]

I think it should be changed to:

On 9th July 2019, Mr Corbyn announced Labour’s policy that “Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote. In those circumstances, … Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

On 17th September 2019 Mr Corbyn announced in The Guardian Labour’s policy to pledge in a General Election to hold a referendum on Labour’s own deal with the EU: “The people of Britain deserve to have their say in a general election. Only a Labour government would end the Brexit crisis by taking the decision back to the people. We will give the people the final say on Brexit, with the choice of a credible leave offer and remain.

• Why it should be changed: Your wording states that Mr Corbyn was proposing a second referendum in any event “including on the deal Labour would attempt to negotiate if it entered government”. In July, Mr Corbyn proposed only that a Conservative deal or no deal should be put to a referendum. It was not until 17th September 2019 that Mr Corbyn announced in The Guardian Labour’s policy to pledge in a General Election to hold a referendum on Labour’s own deal with the EU: “The people of Britain deserve to have their say in a general election. Only a Labour government would end the Brexit crisis by taking the decision back to the people. We will give the people the final say on Brexit, with the choice of a credible leave offer and remain.”

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-closes-labours-brexit-consultation-challenging-next-prime-minister-put-deal-people-referendum-labour-campaign-remain-no-d/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/17/labour-final-say-brexit-boris-johnson-britain-eu 2A00:23C6:B605:6D01:AC63:9709:F6A7:F85A (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The wording does not state what you assume it to state. Aaron Liu (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link Deputy leader of the Labour Party (UK) to Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) as it is capitalised. 86.191.232.137 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I do not see "Deputy leader of the Labour Party (UK)" anywhere in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to undo the last two edits by user FantasyFlan, reverting to the version last updated 05:22, 18 July 2022‎. FantasyFlan's edits denote Corbyn as "far-left" as his first descriptor in the first sentence of the article. This designation is subjective and easily contested, and similar opening descriptors are not used for politicians with comparable (e.g. Carla Denyer) or contrasting (e.g. Nigel Farage) views. Ctwhiting (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rather than edit warring through edit requests, please discuss the use of the label and establish a consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

All due apologies for lack of standard procedure; trying to learn. As per ScottishFinnishRadish, seeking community thoughts on whether FantasyFlan's update was substantiated or relevant

Defining Corbyn as far-left in the lead doesn't fit within any objective definition, is unlike other articles on other mainstream UK politicians, and is highly unnecessary as his first descriptor Ctwhiting (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it — Czello 07:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I figured someone more familiar would when I saw there were several hundred talk page watchers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FlantasyFlan, pinging you to this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have copied a short section of text from another article (Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party) concerning the Forde Report as I feel it is well-written and is also relevant to this page. If anybody objects to this, feel free to revert the change. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the term "[sic]" following the word "refute". Refute is acceptable (although some people don't like it) as a synonym for "deny". 79.67.221.8 (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done "Refute" and "deny" aren't synonyms. To refute something means to prove it wrong, not simply deny it. — Czello 12:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

See here and here.     ←   ZScarpia   15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The section on the Sailsbury Attack is missing vital context:

Corbyn made a speech about the attack on the 15th March, the same day he wrote the article: https://www.ukpol.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-2018-response-to-the-salisbury-attack-statement/

What you'll notice is that this is the first time that Corbyn mentions requesting evidence from Russia and performing tests on the sample. He mentions it in the context of duties the UK Government would have if they were to try and find Russia guilty according to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The article does not mention that Corbyn was basing his stance on Russia on the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor does the PoliticsHome source cited.

I would argue understanding that this position wasn't a matter of "Let's let Russia decide the case" but was actually Corbyn trying to get the response to adhere to procedures established by a Rules Based International Order, is a vital piece of context to understand this event.

Omitting this context is extremely misleading. DoricSpengler (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Another point I would make is that the way this Wikipedia Article cites the Guardian article Corbyn wrote on the 15th of March is extremely selective in it's reading, and potentially verges on misinformation.

The wikipedia article quotes him saying "Is a matter for police and security professionals to determine". I'm going to post the original context of that statement and highlight in bold the part the article quotes him on, to hopefully demonstrate why I believe this is misleading:

"Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible."

The way the article presents these comments is Corbyn saying he doesn't believe a definitive answer has been established. This is not the case, Corbyn is saying he agrees with Theresa May that there are two possibilities, that either the Russian State was responsible, or someone acquired the chemicals from the Russian State, and that it is up to security services to determine which of these is true.

Taking a brief line about it being a matter for police and security proffesionals to determine to make it seem as though he's contradicting the government's account, when the original context is him expressing agreement with the government's account, is such a misrepresentation of what was actually said that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it may as well be considered a blatant lie.

Moreover, Corbyn then goes on throughout the article to specify that he wishes to seek Magnitsky-style Sanctions against Russian officials close to Putin. This context is also not mentioned in the article.

The wikipedia page as it currently exists, completely misrepresents the article it cites in order to paint a cleaner picture of Corbyn's response to the Sailsbury attack than actually exists. DoricSpengler (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Deputy leader should be Deputy Leader, please change the grammar 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done —Sirdog (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mjocc, this is a broadly impartial and good quality article on a controversial subject. Their are some aspects which I think could do with being improved before a promotion.

• This section could do with more context particularly in relation to the quite widespread sympathy towards the Irish Republican movement on the political left in Great Britain during this period.

• Some of the text here is a bit too slanted to be impartially written in Wikipedia's voice. I would especially recommend changing "Corbyn's authentic, informal style and radical policies appealed to many of the young new members who had joined after the membership fee had been reduced to £3." to something like "many young new members who had joined after the membership fee had been reduced to £3 were attracted by what they saw as Corbyn's authentic, informal style and radical policies" and "Corbyn's personal qualities were earnest and modest and these inspired warm emotions such as devotion and loyalty." to e.g "Many of Corbyn's supporters felt he possessed positive personal qualities such as earnestness and modesty leading them to develop a sense of emotional attachment to him as individual."
• I would recommend updated this section with events in 2019. It may also be helpful to include more focus on its role in the 2017 election.
• special is misspelt especial

• The timeline is a bit confused in the first paragraph - please specify what day Corbyn conducted the reshuffle.

• This section should be a ==== rather than === level subheading. Go on to source editing to clarify what I mean.
• "A survey of the public found that 66% of those surveyed believed that the Labour party needed a new leader before the 2020 elections and only 23 per cent believed that Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister while Theresa May had an approval rating of 55 per cent." -what date or at least month did this take place
• "when other passengers were upgraded by train staff." - please make this section clearer
• "Meanwhile, a poll for The Independent by BMG Research" - clarify when this took place as well

• "to force Labour MPs in favour"- the phrase "to vote" is missing here

I think this would be a more logical structure for the section...

Corbyn said he welcomed Prime Minister Theresa May's proposal to seek an early general election in 2017.[214] He said his party should support the government's move in the parliamentary vote.[215] The Labour campaign focused on social issues like health care, education and ending austerity.[216] The election campaign was run under the slogan "For the Many, Not the Few"[223] and featured rallies with a large audience and connected with a grassroots following for the party, including appearing on stage in front of a crowd of 20,000 at the Wirral Live Festival in Prenton Park.[224][225] He chose to take part in television debates and dressed more professionally than usual, wearing a business suit and tie.[226]

Earlier in the year, Corbyn had become the first opposition party leader since 1982 to lose a by-election to an incumbent government,[217] and at the time May called the election Labour trailed the Conservative Party by up to 25 points in some opinion polls.[218] A large Conservative majority was widely predicted. Following the short campaign, Labour again finished as the second largest party in parliament but surprised many pundits by increasing their share of the popular vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament. Although Labour started the campaign as far as 20 points behind, it defied expectations by gaining 40% of the vote, its greatest share since 2001. It was the first time Labour had made a net gain of seats since 1997, and the party's 9.6% increase in vote share was its largest in a single general election since 1945.[218][219] This has partly been attributed to the popularity of its 2017 Manifesto that promised to scrap tuition fees, address public sector pay, make housing more affordable, end austerity, nationalise the railways and provide school students with free lunches.[220][221][222] Corbyn said the result was a public call for the end of "austerity politics" and suggested May should step down as Prime Minister.[218] Corbyn said that he had received the largest vote for a winning candidate in the history of his borough.[227]

• "The report included what is said were examples of how senior Labour Party officials" change "is said" to "it alleges"
• The needs update notice related to the Forde enquiry needs to be acted on. The reference needs to be reworded or removed.

• "The 2019 general election was the worst defeat for Labour since the 1930s.[285] At 32.2%, Labour's share of the vote was down around eight points on the 2017 general election and is lower than that achieved by Neil Kinnock in 1992, although it was higher than in 2010 and 2015." - It would be helpful to specify that it was the worst result in seats in order to clarify the other vote share comparisons.
• "Labour MPs were elected in 202 seats, their lowest representation since 1935 and fourth successive election defeat, although the party's share of the vote was higher than in 2015 and 2010.[292]" This is partially repeating the same information, move all statistics about labour's overall result into one paragraph for clarity.

• This second section on opinion polling could do with being a bit more fleshed out.

• "but would now bring them under public control "line by line" as franchises expire" this should be associated with a specific point in time or policy announcement
• "he called upon the Tory government to institute sanctions" avoid using slang term "Tory"

• There is a needs update notice in this section which needs to be addressed.

• "Corbyn had in fact taken legal action against Conservative MP Ben Bradley during his leadership (see Other events)." It would be better to include a citation here.

I will place this review on hold for you to work on the changes suggested. Please contact me when you would like to move forward. Thanks--Llewee (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Saw this on the GAN list and had a look. The article is comprehensive, but there is room for improvement on some of the writing structure. This is a very long article at 111kB of prose, which might be appropriate given the specificity, but makes it more important to consider how it will be read. Throughout this article there are numerous one or two sentence paragraphs based off a single source, which don't integrate well into the surrounding text. Part of this may be the result of such items often being cited to primary sources like a parliamentary description page, which do not provide context or analysis. Another cause is reporting on minor moments or incidents, that may not have had long-term impact.

Related is the way the article jumps between chronological and topic-based information. Broadly, it seems like the first few sections (up to "Post-leadership") are meant to be chronological, but often see a topical jump to another time (eg. "Irish politics" within "Labour in opposition (1982–1997)" jumps at the end to "In 2017, Corbyn said that..."). Perhaps it would be better to condense the timeline sections to the more important moments, leaving summaries of topical views and analysis regarding these to later sections. Regarding political positions, this is a section full of disconnected and often very small topics (contributing greatly to a lengthy table of contents). This is most clear in the lengthy "Foreign Affairs" subsection, which has small and in some places seemingly arbitrary splits (eg. why is "Nuclear weapons" separate from "War and Peace", why does "Tunisian wreath-laying controversy" have a section outside of "Israel and Palestine"?). This section is one with a subarticle (Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn), so it would be well served by having a more holistic summary than a series of disconnected subsections.

On an unrelated point, it may be worth considering an international audience of the article. Jargon like "had the whip removed" will not be easily understood by those unfamiliar with British politics. Best, CMD (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee and Mjocc: What is the status of this review? It has now been open for almost two months. CMD (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, Mjocc hasn't responded to the review or edited the article since the initial review. I was trying to give them time to do so though I know it has probably now been too long.--Llewee (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've got a lot to sort out in real life over the next couple of days. I'll have another look at the article later in the week. If I think I'm able to make the changes necessary I'll work through them, if not I'll close it. Llewee (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee Apologies, I'm only just seeing all of this. I'm afraid that I'm also very busy over the next few weeks and don't really have the time to fix all these issues, so I'm happy for it to be closed if necessary. Mjocc (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc:, if I was to leave this open for another month do you think you would be able to work on it by then?--Llewee (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I should be able to do some work on this article in that timeframe. I'm not entirely sure I'll get through everything suggested by you and CMD, but I'll do as much as I can. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Llewee:, I have some more time now, and have started to do some work on this article, so would appreciate if this could be left open for another couple of weeks. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc: we can leave it open until after the Christmas period if you want to. Please, strikethrough any changes you've made as shown or add any comments/questions after them. For a completed review with a similar structure see, Talk:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes/GA1. I'll sign off my suggestions and then Ping Chipmunkdavis for their side of the review.--Llewee (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that should be enough time. Mjocc (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc:, how are you getting on with this? Its been another mouth now and you haven't edited the article at all since you last replied here. If their's reasons in your personal life why your not able to work on this or you don't feel as if you know how to deal with the problems then please just say.--Llewee (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Llewee; Thank you for being so understanding. I have had a few personal issues recently, but also I am somewhat new to Wikipedia editing and feel I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this article. I am happy for the GA nomination to be closed if no-one else is willing to work on it. Thanks again, Mjocc (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok @Mjocc: thank you for being honest, I'm going to close this review, given the amount of work that needs to done I would feel as if I was marking my own homework if I tried to sort it out and then pass it myself. Feel free to work on the issues raised in this review when you're ready and renominate.--Llewee (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The childhood section says JC went to an « independent «  school. This is what conservatives call them. The normal expression, and certainly what Corbyn would say, is « private school » 2A01:CB06:8009:4A76:F0B1:A914:D769:E9FC (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is that independent schools are governed by trustees, whlle private schools are governed by owners.[6] TFD (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim Corbyn supported remaining in the EU, since he was widely accused of deliberately sabotaging the Remain campaign: Corbyn sabotaged Labour’s remain campaign. He must resign | Phil Wilson | The Guardian Aardi18 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Phil Wilson, a Labour politician who wrote in the run up to the 2017 general election: "I am no supporter of Theresa May and I am no supporter of Jeremy Corbyn". Hardly a neutral voice you put forward. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There was widespread criticism, so much so that Corbyn had to publicly deny he had voted to leave the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardi18 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So, 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)

^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]} Burrobert (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

I 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)

with 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)

@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)