Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article - Further review comments

After further review of this article (more so a primary review as I will go into further detail with reading once I have the time to do so) I have identified two statements which I do not find to be encyclopaedia orientated content and rather the expression of opinions that are stylised as facts. Please see below:

1. Corbyn at this time was known for wearing open-necked shirts to the Commons.

• Issue - Relevance to an encyclopaedia. From a common sense approach it doesn't seem necessary to include information about Mr Corbyn's dressing habits in an article that is aimed to inform a reader what they need to know about this person and what is relevant and factual. It is a given that this might be a fact however, it is certainly not a given that this fact is necessary or constructive for building a page that is supposed to be for the latter mentioned reason. I would move to remove this detail as it seems to contribute to clutter and is far from notable.

1. Labour experimented attracting mass support by publicly offering reduced-price party membership of £3, thereby enabling "registered supporters" to vote in its 2015 leadership election.[44] There was some speculation that this would lead to Jeremy being elected on £3 donors alone and not have majority support within members of the Labour Party.[45]

• Issue - Expression of an opinion stylised as a fact. This point appears to be a clear opinion on WHY the labour party publicly offered a reduced party membership rather than a fact. Surely the content of an encyclopaedia should absolutely stray away from stylising points of view expressed by a columnist as a fact. It would be different if Labour themselves had announced this as the reason but to date I have found absolutely no validation of this opinion other than speculative. Is Wikipedia a place for speculative opinions to be plopped on the reading table (or phone, tablet ect) as a fact? I wouldn't have thought so. This is why I strongly believe this content should be removed and anything like it. If it is to be kept I would suggest that it be written as is and that is an opinion of whomever expressed it as to why the Labour party reduced rates.

Thank you.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the article to fit with your first suggestion. As to your second, I don't think anyone was suggesting that - the decision to have £3 entry was taken well before the general election and therefore well before Corbyn had even entered the race. I will try and think of an alternative to try and make this clear - if you are reading it as suggesting this then other people may be as well Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I believe that another editor has recently cleaned up an edit I made to the section. Please tell me what you think. If you read the BBC article you will find that whoever wrote that section here on Wikipedia (prior to our edits) clearly speculated on what the BBC was trying to refer to rather than style it around what the article itself was saying.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 20:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - the £3 decision was taken in the wake of a scandal in Falkirk in 2013 (where there was evidence that Unite secretly paid for new party memberships for local people without their consent). I haven't yet come across anyone who thinks that it was changed to make it easier for leaders on the left of Labour to win and I don't think this is how it read either. The BBC was certainly not alone in reporting this - it was fairly big news back in 2013 Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

" To clarify - I don't think that the "It was reported in the British media" statement is necessary - it is not a disputed fact that the rules were changed and the entry widened in order to have "mass democracy" Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• The wording used was Labour experimented attracting mass support by publicly offering reduced-price party membership of £3. That reads like a speculative conclusion not based at all by the source page referenced to the BBC article. Specifically "labour experimented attracting mass support" is certainly an example of what I am saying here. The statement in itself is bold and relates to an opinion held about why they reduced the price to £3 rather than a factual assertion drawn upon by the article referenced. The issue here is that an encyclopaedia really should not be a place to field speculative personal views that are not reflected especially in the sources referenced. Do you not genuinely believe that the article is better as edited now than it was before with that claim removed?  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

lead in opinion polls described in lead as quickly emerged

Corbyn quickly emerged as the lead candidate in opinion polls

I don't think the use of the word 'quick' in the lead is factually correct. He did emerge as the lead but it wasn't sudden or immediate - he was not initially ahead in the polls in June or July, and it was only in August he stayed ahead. So you reverted my removal of the word quick - want to discuss @Mabelina:? --ℕ ℱ 21:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[1]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly isn't the picture presented by Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling --ℕ ℱ 21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this poll (by YouGov) is listed as the third one to take place once entries had closed on Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You see, you can't even trust these rotten Socialists (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well lets see what's what:

• Corbyn emerged as the lead candidate - votes for this version

• --ℕ ℱ 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Corbyn quickly emerged as the lead candidate - votes for this version

I introduced the term "quickly" into the article about Jeremy Corbyn and this is because for a long time he was not even off the starting blocks, ie. he didn't initially have sufficient parliamentary nominations to participate; so, prior to his formal/official candidature he was well behind (ie. not featuring) in the polls, but as soon as his name was placed on the roster (for want of any better word) his support "seemingly" rocketed, largely by the harnessing of social media (by his supporters). How else to put it succinctly other than : "quickly emerged after his candidature was formally endorsed"? Either way, he did not slog it out for most of the Labour campaign: he joined late (last, in fact) and led pretty much thereafter. Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The "as soon as his name was placed on the roster (for want of any better word) his support "seemingly" rocketed" doesn't reflect the actual polling information in Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling, saying it was quick isn't unequivocally supported by the evidence, and to use adjectives like that unsupported by sources is WP:OR --ℕ ℱ 22:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)#

I'm so sorry but please take stock of the following: http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/06/04/shropshire-educated-jeremy-corbyn-joins-labour-leadership-race/ & http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9461. Please argue against that! M Mabelina (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So your sources seem to say only that he joined the contest at the start of June, and a poll at the end of July shows him as ahead, that is no different to the information I've already provided above, two months is far from quick. --ℕ ℱ 22:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say if you really want to have it your way have it your way. The point is he was nowhere in the polls & he came from behind & overtook everyone in a blink. It was hardly as if he crept up the lead table one by one. However you wish to phrase it... - in fact, to my mind, it's more commendable that he raced to poll position and held that position. Over to you... M Mabelina (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing something, but I really struggle to understand why you choose to describe an approximately two month period as "in a blink". --ℕ ℱ 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The way you campaign nothing will ever be over in a blink - he came out of nowhere - he surprised everyone (including himself) - we could go on for ever about this, but it really was a major, massive, astonishing surprise how quickly he soared to the top the leadership polls. Would you rather infer that he slogged it out campaigned really hard, canvassed his fellow MPs etc...? No, this is not the case. Anyway, let's see how you would rather have it recorded on Wiki. Thank you. M Mabelina (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - General Issue

Hello fellows. It appears that some of this article lacks common sense completely and reads like a tabloid rather than an Encyclopaedia. For example under the section for " Energy and transport" there seems to be a completely contradictory statement.

In August 2015, Corbyn raised the prospect of introducing women-only carriages on public transport (a policy currently enforced in Japan), as well as a 24-hour hotline for women to report cases of harassment.[94] He said that although his aim was to "make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself", he would consult women on whether separate carriages would be welcome, after the idea was suggested to him.[94] His statement was condemned by Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, with Cooper stating that Corbyn's plan was "turning the clock back instead of tackling the problem",[95] while Conservative Women's Minister Nicky Morgan said she was "uncomfortable with the idea", which sounded like "segregation".[96]

1. he would consult women on whether separate carriages would be welcome, after the idea was suggested to him
2. His statement was condemned by Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, with Cooper stating that Corbyn's plan was "turning the clock back instead of tackling the problem",[95] while Conservative Women's Minister Nicky Morgan said she was "uncomfortable with the idea", which sounded like "segregation

The simple fact is if this idea was suggested to him by another and he simply related that idea then why would there be quotes to suggest that the idea was in fact conceived by him in the first instance and then "condemned" by others. We need to establish by reliable non-media based sources (unless those sources have unedited video or audio transcripts to support a claimed quote) what was said, who suggested it and then simply keep that in the text. I do not believe that opinions expressed by other political figures about another political figure are truly representations of facts on an issue rather bring into opinions and ideas suggested by other parties. If these views need to be entered into an article surely they should have their own place rather than fogging every other stage in the article where truly those views are irrelevant to the reader on the given subject area. Unless the topic title is related to other politicians or special interest persons / groups opinions on the person in question then surely it makes sense that those are not included and the reason why they should not be included is exemplified by this foregoing issue with the contradictory statements. When you start bringing in quotes by bias parties on the person subject to the article you are opening it up to bias therefore it is only inherent that the article then be subject to bias. I wouldn't go as far to say that this appears to be an issue of controversy but more so a question of the eduction to which those writing such statements have about Encyclopaedia content. I would suggest and move to a review of this article to address the aforementioned problems that occur all so much in these articles.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be raising an issue requiring a minor clarification, rather than a major controversy, though some of your language is quite difficult to follow. You say yourself that "I wouldn't go as far to say that this appears to be an issue of controversy". In that case, it does not require a tag asserting bias across the top of what is currently a very high profile article. Your point about the wording of the section regarding his policy on women-only carriages can be addressed here, without a tag asserting bias across the entire article. I suggest it should be removed again - please don't re-add it without providing better arguments about the article as a whole. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle I do not agree with the removal of maintenance tags until the issue is resolved however, if you feel that for some reason this may add to the integrity of the article then you are free to do so. But I do wish you to note that it is fair before making arbitrator type edits to resolve the issue at hand first without simply basing your choice on your own decision making. Thank you. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You have added the banner tag incorrectly. If you wish to question one statement in the article, tag that section, not the whole article, about which you agree there is no controversy. You should revert your addition of the tag - I will not do so again, but if other editors have a similar view to mine, I will support them in doing so. Also, you should raise issues on article talk pages before, not after, adding unexplained tags; and you should sign talk page posts using four of these symbols: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for my response on your previously mentioned suggestions. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

...and I have already responded there. For the record, and to avoid confusion, you added your comment starting "I do not agree" at 08:39, not 08:57. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Olowe2011 Can you suggest a change to the content? To me it reads as if they are criticising Corbyn for considering having this idea as his policy, but if you think it is unclear then feel free to suggest an alternative. You also say that some of the article reads like a tabloid - which other parts do you have a problem with? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk Hello, thanks for your more than amicable response. I would simply suggest that quotes from bias sources are removed and placed in a section designated "Opinions by others" on the person subject to this article or something similar stylised to avoid contradictions. If this was an idea expressed to Mr Corbyn and this is a matter of fact and he simply relayed this as a suggestion then perhaps this fact can be made clearer. However, I do find that it is imperative that statements which defeat each other should be removed because as a new reader to this article I did get the distinct impression that these two statements where presented as facts despite contradicting each other:

1. Mr. Corbyn was told by someone (who?) that it would be a good idea to create spaces in trains for women which he then expressed or relayed
2. Political figures then denouncing him for these ideas as if they had been his in the first instance

In conclusion it seems right that the views and opinions expressed by bias sources are removed from sections that are trying to convey matters of fact. This shouldn't be about reiterating political debates or depicting two sided discussions between the labour and conservative party rather give a clear, decisive and non bias overview of the person subject to this article. I would also strongly side with this article being over detailed and read more like a complete life and political biography rather than a Wikipedia article evolving around the basic facts people need to know when they read Wikipedia and search for Jeremy Corbyn.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 09:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having both comments is unnecessary now that the leadership election is over and I have removed the comment about the other candidates opinion but looking at the article, Corbyn published the suggestions in a policy document. This implies that he was doing more than simply relaying the suggestion. However he then seemed to suggest it was a proposal rather than a definite policy. Perhaps the best solution would be to quote from the article itself? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk Thank you for being an open and friendly editor, I think this really goes into account for your character. The edits you have made make it a lot clearer and clarify the issue so that it appears less contradictory. I will review the rest of this article for similar issues when I have time but its not a topic I would like to remain stagnant on to be honest (I am really unable to engage in political articles to an extent where I am directly contributing to content.) This was simply an issue whereby I stumbled upon the article and as a Wikipedia editor felt it didn't really clarify the issue in a way that was clear and free from bias. I do have an idea that people who generally read Wikipedia would like impartial and straight forward reading without having to feel like they are reading a newspaper or political debate. Many people I have spoken to seem to take this strong view that "most of Wikipedia is crap" - for want of a better word. I am sure you have stumbled on this yourself and its for us as keen editors to try our best to make it a better place for everyone so such sentiments are not drawn when they are avoidable. Thanks again I will be happy to speak to you soon  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Olowe2011 are you happy for me to now remove the "NPOV section" notice from this section? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Eisen support claims

These apparently originate from Paul Eisen's blog. He is reportedly an open Holocaust denier, and has been rejected by PSC for anti-semitism. His incriminating blog post is [2], (non RS perhaps, but not easily accessed, and the author has disabled archiving robots.txt), the claims are laid out in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, both of whom may or may not have an axe to grind, one corroborated by photographic evidence and it's not common to see them join in accusation of a British politician in rising favour. There has been only a qualified and selective denial by Corbyn's office. I have tried to do justice to the subject in adding this here, but it is a very serious and controversial charge for a potential party leader and other editors may wish to comment on this. Cpsoper (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst writing this, I see another editor has already taken exception on the basis the DM is not a good source [3], though the Guardian [4] and JC [5] also raise precisely the same concern (without the photographic evidence) and the Guardian cites the office response. I inclined to revert, but happy to discuss here.Cpsoper (talk)

The passage from the week old Mail article which might imply Corbyn has questions to answer reads as follows: "When asked to confirm whether Corbyn knows Eisen personally, or whether Eisen's accounts of Corbyn attending 'every single' one of his events and 'opening his cheque book' to his organisation are correct, the spokesperson declined to comment."

It could be that the spokesman does not know, or is aware that it cannot be denied, bu s/the is not saying so. We don't know. Unlike Corbyn's comments about Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah, we don't have anything from Corbyn about Paul Eisen to quote. Anything we might add is liable to be our interpretation and thus original research/synthesis. It does not matter, therefore, that The Jewish Chronicle and The Guardian have mentioned this subject. Philip Cross (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I profoundly differ. Three sources have indicated concern about this matter, and one provides photographic evidence to evidence support his attendance. Eisen's blog is a fourth testimony (though of dubious value for citation here). Corbyn and his office has not categorically refuted these serious claims, despite ample opportunity. Do you really think Corbyn doesn't know? Cpsoper (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note removal of Guardian's 2007 description of Eisen as Holocaust denier. Please read WP:SYNTHNOT. There is a simple factual problem with Corbyn's reported statement about Eisen not being known as a Holocaust denier before 2013, which is noteworthy, encyclopedia and highly relevant to the content. Please do not remove, however problematic it may be for Corbyn's team without discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.6 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto reference to example of Raed Salah's rhetoric to evidence the nature of his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.6 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn is not mentioned in this Times article and dismiss David Aaronovitch if you want but here (no paywall) is an article identifying Paul Eisen as an antisemite from June 2005 which cites an article by Eisen dating from the previous November. In that source, Eisen comments positively about Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. (This piece by Eisen is still online, but I'm not linking to it). Note also that Israel Shamir, who shares many of their opinions, was on the board of Deir Yassin Remembered at this time. Philip Cross (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

seems like a moot point really, in the absence of anything to indicate that Corbyn did due diligence on the organisers before turning up to a Palestinian memorial service held near his constituency (never mind being a close confidant as Eisen claims). Unlikely anti-Semite Gerald Kaufman reportedly also attended at least one of the events since 2005. I can see the logic behind including Eisen on a list of alleged anti-Semites Corbyn reportedly associated with, but not the logic in doing further original research to try to prove when and where Corbyn attended and what he might have been able to find out about the organisers. Frankly I think the article would be improved more by including further details of things Corbyn has actually said and done over the past three decades. Dtellett (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) {-- WP:BLP: struck out description of Gerald Kaufman.     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)}

Introduction - "the highest percentage of votes ever in a party leadership election in British political history"

That's not what the source says. It says: "No leader has ever won office with a larger mandate", "the largest mandate ever won by a party leader". That is true - he got a greater number of votes than any previous leader, because it was the first direct membership election in a major party. We don't know whether previous leaders of major parties won their own elections, under their own systems at the time, with a higher percentage of votes - they may have been elected unanimously, or by an overwhelming majority, by a vote of their MPs, but in many cases those elections were held in secret (and obviously, had much smaller absolute numbers of votes cast). So, the wording of the sentence in the introduction (third para) is wrong and does not reflect the source. It's also a very partial reading of the source, which, immediately after commenting on his large popular mandate, says: "No leader in the party's 115-year history has ever been elected with so little support from MPs." The introduction makes no mention of that, which raises questions of WP:NPOV. We need to preserve balance and neutrality. One option is that the final sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction should be entirely removed - a full discussion of his election, including both the large popular mandate and the lack of MP support, should be covered in the main text. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It's very hard to compare like with like if the rules change each time around. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I was trying to reword it but not sure I succeeded. Note that e.g. Blair got more votes than him (400,00 from members alone) and John Major got a higher percentage of the vote in 1994 (although that was from MPs rather than a mass exercise). Could you guys suggest a better wording? Possibly something along the lines of: "the highest percentage of votes ever in a mass party leadership election in British political history" to distinguish it from elections held with just MPs voting Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a little wordy, I think. Why not just reword the previous sentence -"On 12 September 2015, he was elected Leader of the Labour Party, winning over 250,000 votes, almost 60% of the total, in the first round of the ballot." We can then remove the "biggest ever" stuff - which seems to me to use language that is slanted in his favour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the "£3-a-vote" innovation has made any kind of comparison a bit of a lame duck. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Ghmyrtle, that then removes the question of balance with not including that he had so little support from MPs Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You've moved the sentence without changing it. It's equally misleading, even if it's no longer in the introduction? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I inserted the word "mass" to distinguish it from an election by MPs but I agree it is a bit wordy and this is not ideal - could you/anyone else suggest an alternative? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw the new wording and thought it was OK - it also adds a mention of the low number of MPs supporting him, which gives the necessary balance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that "mass" means something new in this election. But I can't think of any obvious way to improve it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes I see your point, unfortunately I am stuck for a better solution Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of an improvement, because I don't understand the problem... Can you put me out of my misery? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Only that there hasn't ever been "a mass party leadership election" arranged in the same way as this one before. But if you're happy with that level of generalisation, I guess there is no problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How about using the wording from the source - "the largest mandate ever won by a party leader". The only problem is the need for quotation marks, which some could construe as "scare quotes". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone might think he's some kind of "New Statesman". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "largest mandate" is that it's a POV claim that's very open to dispute: Blair obtained the first preferences of 150k more voters overall (as Union members could vote), a clear majority of local constituency party members' first preferences (Corbyn fell just short of 50%) and a clear majority of MPs (Corbyn was obviously backed by only a tiny minority of the party). Ghmyrtle's earlier suggested wording is better, or perhaps *many commentators described Corbyn's victory as "the largest mandate...."* Dtellett (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"...many commentators..." One commentator used those words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP

Due to edit warring, all editors to this article are now limited to making no more than one revert per 24 hours on any image-or-file-related changes, with exception for reverting clear and obvious vandalism, redlinked files, or contributions from anonymous editors. This restriction expires in 30 days, as reflected by the page's edit notice. --slakr^\ talk / 04:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So the sanctions only apply to image-related reverts? AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

in addition do they apply to removals of copyright violations @Slakr: --ℕ ℱ 09:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Any reversion restriction does not apply to removal of copyright or obvious NFC violations (WP:3RRNO, clause 5). Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A Very British Coup

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html

Is it notable that the UK armed forces will not respect the choice of the voters in this matter? Hcobb (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need this sort of speculation in the main BLP. Perhaps in some subsidiary article? Or in the article on the army, perhaps. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Planning for the coup: http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-defence-expert-what-a-british-coup-would-actually-look-like Hcobb (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)