Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Virgin trains incident

The incident http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700 has been widely reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/jeremy-corbyns-rampacked-train-stunt-backfires-20160823-gqzi82.html, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79734056-6935-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.html?siteedition=uk#axzz4IBXK5bBh, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/private-railway-company-virgin-trains-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-over-video-to-highlight-overcrowding-a7205406.html, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/23/jeremy-corbyn-virgin-trains-disputes-claim-over-lack-of-seats in leading sources so should be included in the article?77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it should be in here - whatever happens with this issue, it is clear that it is a major story, being the lead story of most of the papers. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"A major story"? Are you serious? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid and this is just trivia and hardly a major story, really has no place here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: @Andy Dingley: Note another nonsensical story on image, whether he would bow to the Queen upon induction to the Privy Council, is not even given a passing mention. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Being accused of lying is far more important than whether or not he would bow to the Queen. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Huge item on BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC) .... also, Jezza never got a bouquet

It is indeed a major news story, perhaps almost carrying the same weight as the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Piggate. Perhaps someone will create a suitable article about it, along similar lines. But, it doesn't - yet - really seem sufficiently important to mention it in this biographical article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say this only becomes important if it's a factor in something else, such as it it were deemed to have cost him the leadership. He did something foolish, got caught out, and the media (who, let's face it, generally view him unfavourably) jumped all over the story. I must confess I didn't see the Ten O'Clock News because I'm watching the Proms on BBC Four, but there was some coverage on the Six O'Clock News. At the moment though it's hardly in the same league as Watergate or Plebgate. Perhaps we should hold off for a few days and see whether the story develops further. This is Paul (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

:) This is Paul (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn being accused of lying, barratry on the high seas or buggering the bursar is of no interest whatsoever. Over the last year he's been accused of everything short of being Jack the Ripper and there's still no substance to any of it. Right now Virgin are tweeting that "Coach H" had empty seats, yet if you look at the makeup of these trains, Coach H is the buffet car! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Coach H is indeed the food car, but as you can see from pictures in the articles, it also contains standard class passenger seating. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Can one actually illegally scuttle an entire political party?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC) .... and have you ever had to face one of those East Coast Main Line egg mayo's??

It's a Labour Party tradition. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• The Guardian seems to think it worth reporting. --John (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ye gods, the silly season is upon us. This is Paul (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Some gaffes have more longevity than others, so there's no rush. It could become a big issue because it flies in the face of the honest and spin-free image he tries to cultivate or it could all blow away next time he says something outspoken on policy or his rivals. It's probably more likely to be worth a sentence than a subsection though, assuming his team aren't daft enough to draw attention to it by pursuing Branson over whether CCTV violates privacy laws Dtellett (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. If, down the road, it is established as the undoing of his hold on the leadership, then fine. But if it proves to be a passing story of no significance, then let's follow the obvious course. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The articles about this incident have continued to be leading news for a second day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-37171475 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

okay... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Non story, Richard Branson's own pic (which breachs the Data Protection Act) show the empty seats where reserved when Corbyn first got on the train. After the filming & 45 minutes into the journey, a family was upgraded to first class and a seat was offered to corbyn. I guess Branson might be so concerned with Corbyn's privatisation plans, that he forgot that folks fail to get seats everyday on busy trains.-- BOD -- 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought Old Beardie's withering smackdown actually made this a story. But maybe Jeremy's just researching for his life after politics? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The latest line from Corbyn is that there were seats, just not two together and he wanted to sit next to his wife. "Yes, I did walk through the train. Yes, I did look for two empty seats together so I could sit down with my wife, to talk to her. That wasn't possible so I went to the end of the train." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Traingate - where do we stand? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll reserve judgement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG, have we just reached a new low? This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn seat fall out continues http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/just-a-fifth-of-people-think-jeremy-corbyn-was-telling-the-truth/ 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

and it rumbles on for another day https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/28/john-mcdonnell-richard-branson-stripped-of-knighthood-traingate77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Further coverage here too, with some hard data relevant to his campaign's progress http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-virgin-trains-row-cctv-sitting-on-floor-passengers-overcrowding-a7217471.html I see however that here is no logical place for such info in this article (nor the leadership challenge one for that matter) - is that deliberate? Wikipedia's idea of not being a newspaper perhaps? Or just part of some kind of damage limitation exercise by his supporters? You can see how in Jezzas case, what with all the nasty biased media, that saying nothing at all, except to report the result hopefully, would be the most sensible approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that it is higher profile than the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Piggate incidents, both of which are mentioned in the Ed Miliband and David Cameron pages, with the latter getting a whole paragraph. By comparison to these incidents the Virgin trains incident deserves between a few sentences and paragraph here.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle points out, it how has an article, so it seems to be "notable". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority opinion in the deletion review of said article, 18 to 13 voted to delete the article as unworthy for wikipedia (I did not vote). Hopefully that page will be removed soon. The episode stayed in the newspapers not because it was notable, but because the establishment press is without doubt biased against Corbyn and they will hang on to and twist any story that might be used to discredit him. Personally I think recording the coverage of the incident cheapens both this article and wikipedia. Just because pig gate, or butty incident have a pages should not excuse the recording of yet another incident of biased and shoddy journalism here.-- BOD -- 12:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD's are not decided by majority votes - the very clear template added at the top spelled that out to all contributors? We can look forward to another AfD when deemed necessary. Meanwhile the article, and thus the incident itself, is deemed "notable" in terms of Wikipedia policy and process? You're probably right about about "the establishment press", but that's a personal argument that has no weight here without reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

LSE and Birbeck have given us very good evidence of media bias on reporting of Jeremy - crazed hamster eating leftie - Corbyn-- BOD -- 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But to employ that material here, in the way you suggest, would be WP:SYNTH? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bodney, kindly take your head out your ass and stop giving Wikipedia editors such a bad name. If you bother to consult the article (in its current version, not whatever it is going to look like after it is gutted of all non-essential information by those who desperately don't want it to be here at all because it's embarrassing to poor old Jezza who is after all only interested in our collective health and well being), you will find that this only became a story because a) Jezza produced a film to make a political point b) it was first reported by left leaning The Guardian, who seemed quite happy to cooperate with Corbyn to make the point he wanted to make c) it only then became a huge story because Jezza didn't seem to realise he was taking on someone who has form for hitting right back, and (still) doesn't seem to appreciate that if you don't cooperate with the media, and you can't even be bothered to ensure that when people ask you questions like 'what happened?' they are given a consistent and believable response, then yes, you're going to be portrayed as someone who is incompetent at best, and lying their ass off at worst. 77LmTA6knQ6 makes a really great point - it is completely, totally, obviously wrong for Piggate to be given an entire paragraph in David Cameron's article, over an uncorroborated anecdote no less, and yet traingate gets no mention here at all, despite it being a row about one of Jezza's few notable successes as a leader in his otherwise pretty sorry term (again, consult the article if you're confused about that point). I have never been more convinced that the reason this article makes no mention of what he's been up to on the 2016 campaign trail, is simply damage limitation. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The decision following the deletion request of the Traingate article was that it will not be deleted. As this incident now has its own wikipedia page it is more than important enough to be included in this article.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As a passing comment, since the Traingate article looks very thorough. It one of many instances of publicity which has backfired, or been clumsily handled. Another "Seumas, I'm not sure this is a good idea" incident, although Milne was not present on this occasion. His controversial appointment last October, much discussed, is unmentioned in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I feared, the article is now under heavy attack, and despite claims this is merely to make it more concise or succinct, it seems pretty obvious to me the goal is to make it appear the row was more minor than it was, and with more than a hint of pro-Corbyn anti-Virgin bias now coming in - why else remove details of Corbyn's team personally attacking Branson, but leaving in their explanation that they were puzzled Branson had a fit over their perfectly reasonable renationalisation plans? Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In the fullness of time, Traingate is likely to be judged as trivial and just end up being merged into this article. 7dayrr (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In which case we should start the process by putting Traingate in this article.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Says who? People really should stop speculating and accept the evidence that is in front of their face, which already shows traingate was not a small event, no matter how much they disagree with it being treated as such by the nasty Corbyn hating media. From what I've seen, Wikipedia has a shocking record when it comes to accurately predicting what will be remembered and have impact, and what won't - compare and contrast how it covered piggate and biggotgate. Although of course, the difference could also be down to Wikipedia's well known left leaning bias - any excuse to slam a Tory Prime Minister, while protecting a Labour one. People here must be a sandwich short of a picnic if they seriously believe traingate is not going to rear its head again and again for as long as Corbyn is leader, assuming he continues to promote renationalisation as one of his key policies, believing as he does that it is a clear differentiator between him and the Tories, and indeed between him and past Labour leaders. Should he last that long, I am extremely confident that it will be remembered during the 2020 general election campaign, because when people start crunching the numbers, as the press have already begun to do in the wake of traingate, they will realise that his renationalisation policy, which aims to bring us cheaper fares and a publicly owned railway, has a monetary black hole in it on the order of a a few billion quid. Which, Corbyn being what he is, can only be raised one way, through a shit ton of taxation. Wikipedia will go nowhere for as long as it is created by people who don't appreciate how politics or the political media works - try as he might, Corbyn has not changed that reality on the ground one bit. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Should he last that long, I am extremely confident that it will be remembered during the 2020 general election campaign. This summarises the quality of KK's comments (I shan't comment on the rest), and is a textbook contravention of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And the fact you seemingly don't care that anyone else but me has been making predictions of the unknowable future too in this matter speaks very well as to your quality as a person. At least my prediction is based on common sense, a knowledge of UK politics/media, and the past experience of how similar things done by political leaders have been remembered in the fullness of time, such as on the occasion of their political obituary, even though several people here claimed at the time that they wouldn't be. Biggotgate for example. All you need to generate such memorable moments is a key policy area and a politician appearing to be disingenuous leading to a very public row, all of which we have here. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your or anyone else's predictions. As an Guardian editorial says this was a "trivial incident, which arguably would never have even been noticed without the use of social media", in the doubtful age of "so-called post-factual era of political debate, where people will choose to believe whichever version of events in traingate that suited their established views on the issues and Corbyn." The is real factual news happening out there, this relatively minor incident may or may not fade away. -- BOD -- 00:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Is that the same Guardian who broke the story first? And in a style and manner which commentators have been calling partisan, almost cheer leading, and of dubious integrity given the apparent links between the source of the video and the Guardian people who wrote it up? Post-factual journalism indeed. Face it, Jeremy wanted this to be a story, The Guardian wanted this to be a story, but it all just kind of got away from them, message-wise, once people actually started looking at it for themselves. Maybe that was all the work of the nasty anti-Corbyn establishment media, maybe it's because Virgin apparently knew straight away there were 140 free seats on the train and don't much like being publicly trashed by someone with an agenda to make them all state employees, and so decided to hunt through their video collection, but you'd frankly have to be blind to be arguing that what happened was not real factual news. Jezza and Virgin had a row and it was widely reported and given lots of meta analysis because of all the different issues and agendas and huge sums of money involved, and that is a fact. People can dispute that all they want, for whatever reason they want, but they must surely know that other people are going to look at them as if they've had a bang on the head if they do. At the end of the day, if The Guardian put this much effort and this much news print into a relatively trivial matter that will surely fade away, then I cannot wait to see what they do for a serious issue. Trident renewal must merit a full special edition by that measure, no? Still, I'm glad we can all agree Wikipedia is no place for predictions - so let's hear no more about how this will all supposedly be forgotten or have no impact on Jezza's stellar career, until we're all absolutely sure it has not and did not. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah you still trying to shake up a storm in a Virgin train disposable takeawy coffee cup.-- BOD -- 22:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This incident is again leading news http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/07/theresa-may-brexit-confusion-jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-live/ , confirming its longevity. If there are no violent objections I'll put the incident in the article.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well...TM mentioned it at PMQs, but that hardly means the issue was leading the news. I haven't watched today's instalment yet, but no doubt many other topics were mentioned too. This is Paul (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that the point is that it is the lead of the telegraph's article about PMQs.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess today was a slow news day then. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Or actually traingate was an important event that continues to make headlines despite everything else going on around the world. To declare today a slow news day represents original research that violates the WP:NOR policy.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

:) I can't help but smile. In the same session of PMQs she also slapped down David Davis over Brexit. So Brexitgate anyone? This is Paul (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Brexitgate is not notable from this PMQs as it wasn't the headline.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So if the only voice against putting traingate in the article is This is Paul whose user page states that they are linked to the Labour party so that user cannot be impartial according to WP:NPOV, I guess that we agree that traingate should be included?77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

a) I vote Labour, but I'm not linked to them; b) I've made it clear elsewhere I am not a Corbyn supporter; c) This whole episode is descending into a complete farce worthy of an Ealing comedy, as a duo of desperadoes look to increasingly audacious arguments for reasons as to why this minor event should be included somewhere on Wikipedia. This is Paul (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As a Labour supporter according to WP:COI you should at the least follow WP:DISCLOSE to declare your interest and preferably withdraw from the discussion. Other editors can then proceed with a WP:NPOV analysis to decide how to continue with this.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think perhaps requiring persons voting for a major party to withdraw from the conversation is just a little bit more than WP:COI requires. It would be understandable that party candidates & officials refrain from editing the article directly, but we would still not require them to leave the discussion. Would we also require Tory & Lib Dem voters to recuse, on the basis that they are opposed to the Labour party? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with This is Paul and think that Traingate is definitely worthy of mention on this page, but the fact that This is Paul supports Labour in no way makes this a conflict of interest. WP:COI would apply if This is Paul was an activist, or paid by the Labour party, but support for a political party is not covered at all in the policy. It would be pretty tricky to prevent anyone who supported either Labour or the Tories from editing a political page, given that this applies to about half the UK population. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm I'm not an activist, nor am I a member of the Labour Party. I may not even be a Labour voter if Corbyn is re-elected. So flinging the mud at him should make me happy. However, it doesn't. I strive to be neutral on here, and the truth is that apart from a brief mention by TM at PMQs the other day, this subject was done with some time ago. Mention it briefly in this article by all means (as is suggested below), and provide a redirect from Traingate, but as for a standalone article, I think that's unnecessary. I believe Absolutelypuremilk acted in good faith by creating Traingate, but sadly it has become a vehicle for others who wish to push an anti-Corbyn agenda. This is Paul (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

An open goal for the UK PM at PMQ provided by Jezza himself - in that regard not all that noteworthy since he seems to provide one every week, but an example nonetheless as to why all of the Corbynites and all those embarrassed by him, are utterly desperate for traingate to be seen as a non story, to be airbrushed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. But yes, the fact the press reported on this slam was of course because it was a slow news day. I mean, they never usually write stories about what happened at PMQs each week. Wtf? For the record, the TV bulletin coverage seemed to focus not on the usual weekly mockery of Jezza angle, perhaps because it is becoming old hat now, but instead led with May's lack of specifics over Brexit strategy. Sadly for those wishing traingate was seen as a non story, this shows that the media is not really biased, rather they only claim it is when the media makes editorial decisions they don't agree with (such as choosing to focus on an apparent failed stunt by Jezza 'I'm all about the no spin politics' Corbyn, rather than on his NHS policy or the fact that the well known Tory manifesto plans to repeal the Human Rights Act is actually going ahead). Government implements policy that was in its election platform? Now that really is man bites dog stuff. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to include something on Traingate here, just write a short draft and put it up for an RfC. Arguing back and forth isn't going to get you anywhere. There is no right and wrong here. WP:UNDUE is often in the eye of the beholder. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

How about the following for a draft 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

On 16 August 2016, Corbyn released a video of himself sitting on the floor of a Virgin Trains East Coast train. Corbyn said the train was "ram-packed" and used this to support his policy to reverse the 1990s privatisation of the railways of Great Britain. Controversy developed when a week later Virgin released CCTV images showing that Corbyn had walked past available seats on the train before recording his video.

That's fine with me, possibly a brief quote from Corbyn to defend himself. Also as per WP:EGG we shouldn't hide links, what about "A dispute, nicknamed Traingate in the media, developed when a week later...." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the following I've included the WP:EGG comment. Looking at the structure of the text we have clauses on (Fact)(Corbyn attack Virgin)(Corbyn attack privitisation policy)(Virgin defence). Perhaps before including (Corbyn defence against Virgin defense) we should first include (Government defend privatisation policy) to give the government an opportunity to defend itself. If we then include (Corbyn defence against Virgin defense and government defense), we would have double Corbyn statements compared to defense, and so would be obliged to then include (Virgin defense against Corbyn defense) and (Government defense against Corbyn defense), and it all gets quite long. So I'd suggest that we keep it where it is, or perhaps include (Government defend privatisation policy).77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

On 16 August 2016, Corbyn released a video of himself sitting on the floor of a Virgin Trains East Coast train. Corbyn said the train was "ram-packed" and used this to support his policy to reverse the 1990s privatisation of the railways of Great Britain. A dispute, nicknamed Traingate in the media, developed when a week later when Virgin released CCTV images showing that Corbyn had walked past available seats on the train before recording his video.

Yes that's a fair comment, possibly better to just state the facts without any quotes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your help. I've now put this text in the main article.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

An editor has just added more detail backing Corbyn, do we want to keep this and add another balancing comment (e.g. "He later admitted he was looking for two seats together") or remove this? I think it is fine as it was, the reader can look at Traingate if they want the full details. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd think we can probably lose the "members of the public came forward" since it's a bit WP:FRINGE to quote voxpops to contradict video evidence and Metro isn't a good source to use anyway. Usually I'd suggest a response from Corbyn was more appropriate to keep in, but his team have put out half a dozen excuses so I'm not sure which one works: the statement that he was looking for two seats together noted by Absolutelypuremilk is probably the most plausible? Dtellett (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be brief, but it should also be balanced. Perhaps it could keep some of the most recent addition, eg by just saying, as his official responses did, that he and his wife/team were found seats when staff moved other passengers around? That makes the "looking for .." implicit. As for voxpops, although they don't have to be included, I think media reporting of them is OK in principle (the Indy and Guardian also referred to what other passengers said, IIRC, if you want better than Metro). Reference to them certainly shouldn't be excluded while relying on raw video footage to assert that all the seats were definitely empty – that has been challenged too, after all, with some people saying there were bags, people whose heads were not in shot etc, on them. Currently, the phrasing simply asserts in WP's voice that the video "show[s] that Corbyn had walked past available seats on the train". N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

References

"Agreed" version and edit warring

Although this version was agreed above as a bare minimum, it was not set in stone, and the discussion and edits that followed accepted it would be OK to add a bit more. No one demurred from my suggestion to include a brief reference to Corbyn's response and my querying of some of the wording, and two separate editors have now reverted User:77LmTA6knQ6's repeated attempts to restore their version (and they of course, despite their edit summary, have not contributed to any further discussion here). It's surely more "NPOV" (per previous edit summary) to include that response and to note that the raw video only appears to show certain things. Editors should not make WP state in its own voice what is supposedly proven through one reading of selectively edited primary sources. That's WP:OR, if nothing else. N-HH talk/edits 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A direct response from Corbyn is clearly relevant and belongs. That said, I don't see a situation where all reliable secondary sources and a bleeding obvious primary source indicate that a video depicts a carriage full of empty seats to be WP:OR, I consider it to be WP:DUCK. The existence of a WP:FRINGE theory voiced by an unnamed Corbyn aide that every apparently-empty seat was in fact filled with unattended baggage or a tiny person is not a reason to change WP's voice on the issue. Dtellett (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen an on the record TV interview where someone who was with Corbyn makes the claim about bags etc, so it's not an anyonymous source. I've also seen a blog showing stills where some of the seats in that one carriage that appear empty in one shot or from one angle are clearly in fact occupied. There's also footage of course of whole carriages that are undoubtedly fully occupied or reserved. I'm not suggesting these be included, both for RS reasons (especially the blog post) and for reasons of space/bloat, but I think there's enough lack of certainty and clarity to warrant a bit of qualified language here in WP's own voice. The phrase "appearing to show" is accurate, and doesn't argue the seats weren't empty, but equally avoids people arguing that we need to start loading up the page with lots of more detailed debate about whether they were or weren't empty, how many there were etc. N-HH talk/edits 10:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The structure of the previously agreed text is (fact),(Corbyn attack Virgin and government),(defense from Virgin). This appears reasonably balanced as it included one statement from both sides of the debate. If we are now to add another sentence (Corbyn attack Virgin II), then we should also add a sentence (defense from Virgin II), and (government defense I) to ensure it is evenly balanced.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is Corbyn's page, a BLP. It can't simply say "he said X" and then present content that effectively accuses him of mroe or less lying about that (although of course he never explicitly said there were no seats at all; just that the train was packed). Also the response from Corbyn that is now included was not an attack on Virgin: he is recorded as noting the lack of a group of seats to sit in and in fact of course was complimentary towards Virgin staff for helping. Plus I'm not sure there even was a subsequent Virgin response in turn (not that we'd want to fill up the page with a chronological list of every response and counter-response). N-HH talk/edits 08:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:NEUTRAL this text is of the form (Corbyn attack the business of Virgin trains and the government policy), (Virgin defends their business) If you would like to add a further sentence of (Corbyn accuses Virgin of lying) we need to give Virgin a chance to respond to defend their credibility and how well they run the trains. The original form has also not given the government a chance to defend their privatization policy, which we should add. However, I agree with you that we don't want this to be too long, and so further up the talk page we have already discussed all of this and reached the conclusion of the original text.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As there are no protests to that argument we seem to have settled up on the previously agreed text:

On 16 August 2016, Corbyn released a video of himself sitting on the floor of a Virgin Trains East Coast train while travelling to a leadership hustings in Gateshead. Corbyn said the train was "ram-packed" and used this to support his policy to reverse the 1990s privatisation of the railways of Great Britain.[176] A dispute, nicknamed Traingate in the media, developed when a week later when Virgin released selected CCTV images showing that Corbyn had walked past some available seats on the train before recording his video.[177]77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. THe current version is unbiased and is more accurate record of this historic event.-- BOD -- 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

The last line in the introduction should be an increased share of the vote, not an increased majority. The actual majority was about 23%. Cpavett (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Now corrected. Philip Cross (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Employing his son taken out on the grounds the source was the Daily Mail.

I was told my addition had been taken out on the grounds of "find a better source, please."

It's the Daily Mail. One of the country's biggest selling papers. This hasn't been disputed by Corbyn, there has been no complaint or correction. So it's acceptable as fact.

Just because the paper is hostile to JC, it doesn't mean statements of fact, as opposed to analysis, can be discarded. It is one of the country's 2 biggest selling papers afaia. You can't say you'll only take facts from pro-Corbyn sources.

This is a joke. How do I go about challenging this decision?

Corbyn's son, Sebastien, 25, is paid as a researcher for John McDonnell, his father's Shadow Chancellor, as well as for his work on his father's re-election campaign.

Right I've found more. So I'll put them in.

Ganpati23 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of its stance, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper, and we don't use those as sources. So that means we wouldn't use the Express, The Sun, The Mirror, or the Daily Star either. However, since (as far as I can tell at least) most of the mainstream media is anti-Corbyn it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find another one. This is Paul (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this. If the Prime Minister, for example, gave an interview to a tabloid, we wouldn't be able to quote from it? That seems ridiculous. This Corbyn nepotism story was first covered by the Mail, and was true. It's since been reported by other sources, including the ones I cited. Had it been inaccurate, Corbyn's team would have complained and the correction would have appeared on the web-page. So it was obviously true. What if a tabloid has an exclusive? Ganpati23 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In the situations you've outlined here, it is likely other newspapers would make reference to the articles, so we'd have other sources we could use. For example, David Cameron has often written articles for The Sun, which are then reported by other outlets. If a tabloid breaks an exclusive story, if it was notable enough other newspapers would quickly report it as well. In the case of this particular topic, there are plenty of other sources reporting it, so why are you bothering to argue for the inclusion of a tabloid source? Tabloid sources should never be used in biographies of living people. This is Paul (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reliable source, but also a biased source. Compare the edit with how The Guardian describes it:

The edit: Corbyn's son, Sebastien, 25, is paid as a researcher for John McDonnell, his father's Shadow Chancellor, as well as for his work on his father's re-election campaign.

The Guardian: "Corbyn’s son, Seb, a researcher in McDonnell’s office, is also acting as a press spokesman for his father’s campaign."

There is no need to mention that the Shadow Chancellor reports to Corbyn or that the son is paid. That's just implying impropriety without actually saying it. MPs frequently hire relatives for their offices and there is no evidence that the son's employment with the Shadow Chancellor was based on who his father was.

TFD (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Kindly withdraw that statement quoting "my" edit as I did not add the information. It was added by Ganpati23. Also, due to its political stance, the Mail is often not a reliable source, particularly in an instance such as this. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Anyway there has been lots of discussion about the DM. Certainly it is not the best paper in the UK, but if place an ideological test on publications, then you might find it hard to defend the broadsheets, which also have ideological positions. TFD (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I guess no newspaper is really independent of political bias, though some seem to be more excitable than others. This is Paul (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, of course we need to know that his son is paid. There is a vast difference between helping out one of his father's friends, and being given a full-time job paid for the party his father leads. And secondly, we can't start banning newspapers as sources because we disagree with their political stances. And in this instance, the DM proved reliable. Had it been inaccurate, the paper would have published a correction which would be on the website, so we knew that this was true. Just because they are anti-Corbyn, it doesn't mean we must dismiss any evidence they present. When I mentioned on facebook that I'd found my edit had been removed on the grounds that the DM wasn't a good enough source, I was accused by a Corbynista friend of "doing the enemy's work." Wiki is meant for reference, not for propaganda. On every page, as much factual information as possible should be available. How readers choose to interpret that information is up to them. By removing my original edit, it just meant that for one month, people reading this page wouldn't have been aware that Corbyn's son had been given paid employment by both the party and by momentum. As this is a fact, why shouldn't researchers using wiki have access to that information? Ganpati23 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a school of thought that argues most of the British press are anti-Corbyn (apart, perhaps, for The Morning Star and one or two others). Now I've said before I'm no fan of the guy, but I'm not sure how necessary including this information is. It wouldn't be the first time relatives of a senior official within a political party have been employed by that party. This is Paul (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It is necessary. Surely you don't suggest some info should be left out just because other people do the same? All relevant information should be available on a wiki page. How people then choose to interpret this evidence is up to them. And the pages of all the other politicians who employ their children should say so, we shouldn't try to deny that it's happening. For any living figure, if a son is starting to follow in his father's footsteps, it's relevant for his wiki page. In this specific case, it's also relevant for the 'no real jobs outside politics/uni->spad->politician' debate. As well as the potential nepotism conflict of interest - was his son the best candidate? Was it an open selection? etc. People can click the links and then do their own research if it's of interest to them. I'd have certainly wanted to know if Cameron's son had been working as an advisor to George Osborne, for example. Ganpati23 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That exactly is why we should leave it out because that is policy. And if sources say there is a moral issue then we can mention that. But it is not up to us to suggest there may be one when no source has explicitly said that. If people want to read implications of impropriety with actual allegations being made, they can read the Mail on Line. TFD (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where are there allegations of impropriety? There aren't. There is one sentence about the two paid positions Seb Corbyn has been given since his father became leader. Nothing more. Simply two relevant facts, with no analysis, hence no implications. Ganpati23 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The allegations are not explicit but implicit, which is why the DM mentioned that he was paid and the reason you think the information should be included. wikipedia policy says that articles should not express opinions but report them. There is no special waiver for implicit opinion. BTW it is one of the most cowardly ways to express an opinion. TFD (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I find it insulting to suggest that I want this included through any desire to embarrass Corbyn. I'm a historian who believes that wiki should be as well-referenced first port of call as possible containing as many facts about any given subject as possible. That's why I add stuff where I can - mostly about mil-hist, admittedly - and find references if I can where they are needed. Because when I was researching my essays, I wanted as much info as poss here, where I could just click on links to see the websites or Jstor articles or google books etc myself. The sentence I added does not express any opinion, it is simply a statement of fact. Though if you want me to report opinions, I'll add that the Sunday Times described it as "jobs for the boys." That is their opinion. My sentence doesn't express an opinion either implicitly or explicitly as it doesn't suggest, unlike the ST, any impropriety. It is interesting that in the 5 sources still there (which excludes the Mail), the Sunday Times and the Indy both give indications of the salary he receives. While the NS says he's "been pressed into service as a bag-carrier and all-purpose aide" and the Guardian that he is "also acting as a press spokesman." So two sources make explicit the fact that these are full-time paid occupations, while the other two, which are more pro-Corbyn, phrase it in such a way that it could be misinterpreted as him simply helping out. So if we look at this objectively, it appears that the ST and Indy are trying to make the nature of his jobs clear, while the two journals that support him to some extent are trying to leave it ambiguous. That's why we should always have the facts, if possible, to avoid misunderstanding. It makes research so much quicker. Ganpati23 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What we need to know is covered by "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." If The Guardian does not think it important to report that Corbyn's son is paid for his work, then there is no reason for us to mention it in this brief article. Clearly the DM is implying that there is something wrong with paying him, and perhaps there is, but we should not imply anything in articles but provide opinions in proportion to their weight, per "Neutral point of view". Otherwise we are skewing this article toward a DM view. I notice btw that this article does not mention whether Corbyn is paid for his position. Is there any reason why his son receiving pay is mentioned while we do not mention whether Corbyn is paid? No mention either whether the shadow Chancellor is paid. TFD (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

1. It's not that the Guardian didn't think it important enough to report, it's that it chose not to. In exactly the same way the DM chose to do so. It was a choice, to suit the political slant of their readers. We are meant to be objective. The facts are that he's getting paid for both roles. Given that this is known, why would you like the page to leave the question of his remuneration ambiguous? Wiki is about giving facts, not muddying the waters. We are not skewing this article towards a DM view, we are providing info which the DM, and several other sources, also provided but which the Guardian chose to ignore.

2. The article does mention Corbyn's wages. It says he holds the post of Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom) and if you click on the link, you will find how much he earns from this role on top of his wages as an MP. Likewise, you'd find out that Shadow_Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer isn't paid any extra. This website is for research, not propaganda. It is meant to give as much verifiable information as possible. Wiki mustn't censor politically inconvenient facts. Ganpati23 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As you say, one paper mentions pay, the other does not. But it is not our role to be "objective," but to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." While objective to you may mean reporting what the Daily Mail finds important, to someone else it could mean reporting what The Guardian finds important. News media generally do not mention tht someone is paid when they refer to their employment. How often do articles about Corbyn say that he is paid for his position? The fact that someone can find Corbyn's salary by clicking a link is irrelevant. It is not important enough to include in this article. Similarly, editors can click external links for the son if they want to know if he is paid and how much he is paid and learn other information that is irrelevant to this one. TFD (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Replaced "paid as" with "employed as" which is the more generally used term to describe somebody having a regular job. The ability of this page to generate long comment threads of discussion about how to source and phrase a particular factoid that would be uncontroversial on other politicians' pages never ceases to amaze me :-) Dtellett (talk)

His son is not notable enough to mention and the fact he has an interest in politics by working in that area is not unusual (they have been a number of father/son MPs) so really it has no place in an article about his father. In most biographical articles it would not be even normal to give his sons name unless he was of note. So really needs to be removed as trivia and not really encyclopedic and hardly relevant to the subject of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm also slightly struggling with the idea that what one of his sons, who is not WP-notable in his own right, happens to do for a job is relevant to Corbyn's page. Also, if the info does stay, can we stick to one reference? It's slightly OTT at the moment. N-HH talk/edits 21:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's standard for Wikipedia articles to mention the non-WP notable partner and children in the "personal life section" of a biography, including UK MPs. Often this includes their occupation, particularly if (as is commonly the case) that wife or child works for them. I suspect there number of MP articles which mention the subject's non-notable partner works for them is over 100. I'm really not convinced there's a good reason to make an exception for the family of Jeremy Corbyn Dtellett (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was mentioned as general background information at the point the children/family were initally mentioned, and all of them were treated the same way – eg "the couple have a son, John, who has worked on his father's campaigns and as a researcher for the shadow Minister for Sport, and a daughter, Jane, who is an architect" – I think there'd be less of an issue. The problem is that it's been plonked in as a random, standalone point, with the same kind of nudge and a wink that some of the media have deployed over it. Unless there's a specific accusation that Corbyn, or any other MP in a similar situation, has done something significantly wrong or controversial, in which case that can be covered as an issue in itself, I don't see how this kind of thing is necessarily germane to their biography. Anyway, as I say, I'm fairly open-minded. N-HH talk/edits 11:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that -- at best it's a random factoid, and it's pretty clear that there's an implication of something inappropriate. Given the latter point, I think we'd need a source that comes out and says it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Ok. I've added the "jobs for the boys" accusation as requested. But I didn't want to do this for the following reasons and think it should have been left as it was.

a. I see nothing wrong with him employing his son. Many MPs employ their wives as secretaries. It's normal. I just think pro-Corbyn types were getting paranoid about how it could appear. As I say, this is normal behaviour for MPs.

b. That's why it should have been left as it was, as there was no negative implicit accusation. Now, by adding that comment, we've put a negative connotation without having any reply from JC. I can't find him responding to these accusation. But, while not being his greatest fan, I would find nothing wrong with him saying something like "Seb has always worked with me and John, he understands what we want to do better than any other candidate would have done, has a Cambridge politics degree and a great working relationship with John. As such, he was obviously the best qualified candidate for the job." As I say, people are being paranoid. This is what most people would have assumed. Now we've added the negative connotation which is unsubstantiated.

c. Had Corbyn ever spoken out against such nepotism, then this would be an issue and I would have put it in. But as far as I know, confirmed by a cursory google, he hasn't.

d. Though of course, he may do in the future which is another reason why it should be on this page.

e. So I think we should know that he is paid but we shouldn't have the ST's accusation as we don't have a rebuttal from Corbyn. i.e. It was better as it was.

2. And if people are going to edit it because they are obsessed about how it can appear, please make sure it remains grammatical. Someone changed paid to employed, leaving the sentence as "was employed as a researcher for John McDonnell, his father's Shadow Chancellor, as well as for his work on his father's re-election campaign" or something similar. I tried to make it work, but just added paid to the election campaign clause. As I say, if people edit it they have to make sure the sentence still makes sense.

3. Finally, the obsession over something so minor is scary. Look at the amount of talk over simply adding the fact that his son has paid roles for his father and his best friend. You never get this sort of thing on the mil-hist pages. People just care about facts and a balance of sources. Seb has been employed as an adviser and on the re-election campaign and is now Chief of Staff. Clearly the public should know this. They don't need to know that the ST called it jobs for the boys, they can find that if they click on the link, as Corbyn's team haven't been able to defend themselves from this accusation. Ganpati23 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, but I'm removing the "jobs for boys" imputation as I agree it makes the edit worse. I'm also appending it to the paragraph about his family. It also puts it in line with the many, many articles which mention that a partner/relative is employed by them or their party as a one-line factual statement in the "Personal Life" section, without any further commentary regardless of whether the original WP:reliable source did provide commentary. Dtellett (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to what you added, the Sunday Times did not call it "jobs for the boys" but it appeared in an article by James Lyons who put it in "scare quotes" and appears to be quoting an "unnamed Conservative MP." An only one source describes it that way. Following the policy of neutrality, we should always say who is making an accusation and how widespread their view is, and only mention the view if it is significant. Neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your edit does not do that. TFD (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Virgin text again

User:77LmTA6knQ6 has struck out some additional material here, yet again. They have twice been reverted on this previously, by two different editors, and contrary to their edit summary, which claims their preferred version was agreed on talk, it's the modified version that was agreed. In fact, per the lengthy discussion here, their text was indeed accepted as a proposal. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked, or more material added subsequently. And in fact of course of the four people involved by the end of the debate, after the suggestion was made to include Corbyn's response, three favoured adding it, with only 77 .. holding out for excluding it (the other, minor, change was to qualify "showing" to "appearing to show"). N-HH talk/edits 18:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph was agreed some time ago before a user added the extra sentence. For example during the first debate (Absolutelypuremilk) agreed that we did not need another response from Corbyn -- we should count all historical responses in the appraisal, nit just the most recent debate. We need to remember that this paragraph isn't about an attack on Corbyn, but in fact an attack by Corbyn against Virgin and the government, who both must then be allowed to defend themselves. We have included a sentence of the Virgin defense, but not yet the government response. To be fair on the governemnt of teh day we cannot include a second round of Corbyn's comments on this before we have included the governments response. Then, once the government has defended itself if we include the second set of Corbyn's comments, to ensure fairness for Virgin and the government we must include further sentences of the response from Virgin. For me this is getting rather long winded and is best left as simply as sentence (Corbyn attack Virgin and government) and then (Virgin defense.)77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't want to be too long, but I explained why I thought the small addition was needed, especially in a BLP, just as you explained why you would rather not have it. As noted, most other people agreed with the addition. No one other than you, including editors who have been quite active on the page, explicitly dissented from the brief addition – or accepted that if it did go in, we would need another response in turn from Virgin (even if one exists). Given the Guardian's recent mea culpa about how it reported this originally, I think we need to be even more careful about presenting things fairly. N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Post-nominals

Why is there no MP post-nominals? Also, the matter of Mr Corbyn's appointment to the to the Privy Council was discussed in much detail one year and a month ago as shown in the archives. As a year has passed and the Parliament.gov website ([1]) as well as the Prime Minister ([2] @ 2:45)in the recent PMQ's referring to him as being the "Right Honourable" why is it that his name lacks the post nominals of PC - which are used to denote member ship of the Privy Council? I would add them in myself, but I feel it more fitting to start here as shown in the last debate on the matter, it got very heated. Uamaol (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are MP post-nominals in the infobox. And, "Modern custom as recommended by Debrett's is to use the post-nominal letters "PC" in a social style of address for peers who are Privy Counsellors. For commoners, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of their status as a Privy Counsellor." As Corbyn is still an MP and Privy Councillor, the latter custom applies. The same with the PM (only the MP post nominal present, too). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If such is the case, then why do many politicians of the past and present who are commoners, have PC after their names on the Wiki? Mike Penning, Mark Field and Chris Grayling as well as the deceased Alan Clark, none of whom are peers, but are/were Privy Councillors and MP's. Also, as a result of this style preference, why do none of these people, include Mr Corbyn and Mrs May, have RtHn prefixes? Uamaol (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Commoners shouldn't have PC after their names. Only lords use PC because they use The Rt Hon anyway and there needs to be something to show they are also privy counsellors. Its the same with Knight Bachelor: the post nominals Kt are only used if they have a more senior knighthood or title, eg Baron or KBE. Prefixes such as The Right Honourable, The Right Reverend, His Excellence etc, are only used in the infobox and not in opening paragraph (I assume this is what you are asking "none of these people ... have RtHn prefixes". I hope that helps. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding his support of terrorism

While Donald Trump is being described as "populist" and "nationalist". Nothing being said about Corbyn who supports terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is done in another article is irrelevant to what is written here. Wikipedia articles are not here to inject fringe innuendo against people with whom you happen to disagree. Write a letter to the editor, or post your comments on twitter. TFD (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He supported terrorist groups (recognized as terrorist groups in the US and i'm pretty sure in the EU too). It should be written in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You can mention it in the draft at Draft:Jeremy Corbyn. However I think the EU no longer recognise them as terrorist groups but political parties who have had to resort to militant means. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You would have to show that this is something given wide coverage in mainstream media, not just the blogs you rely on for news, which is required by policy. TFD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn's association with Hamas and Hezbollah are already covered in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The very fact this (from an Israeli ISP, as it happens to be) IP is not well-versed in the longstanding distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas / Hezbollah (see EU General Court removal case and Hezbollah article lede lends strong credence that this user is here to make a WP:POINT. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt that they are here to show a point but we must be neutral and include what the reliable sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and no reliable and neutral source says he "supports terrorism". As noted, the Hamas and Hezbollah "friends" issue is on the page, but with what occurred being described factually rather by polemical commentary. Also wouldn't that draft page/section be better in userspace, or proposed for inclusion via this talk page, if it's going to exist at all? N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

well, the first comment was irrelevant. My ip is not the issue. According to English Wikipedia, Hamas is recognized as terror organization in the EU and the US. Hezbollah is recognized as terror organization in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups). So it should be mentioned at the beginning. (unlike Trump, who i'm sure is not recognized as "populist" and "nationalist" in the US or the EU by the official authorities. but he is descrived as such in the very beginning). So I am looking forward for the change.

We put in what is seen as important in reliable sources not what you think is important. We don't mention for example call Trump a supporter terrorism because he supported Gerry Adams, whom the British labelled a terrorist. Furthermore, WP:LABEL prevents us from polemical use of the term. TFD (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yoy have a weird logic. you can't compare a single person to few terror organizations. Besides, Trump is not recognized as "populist and nationalist" by the official authoroties of the USA or the EU. There is a double standerd and note of Corbyn's support of terror organizations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a edit to request or not? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to add his support of terrorist organizations on this article. Start whatever it takes (I don't have an account on wiki). IF I should answer the nonsense in previous comments- i'm sure supporting terrorist organizations by who may be the PM of UK is important enough to be icluded. Now who can write about his support of terrorist organization in the very begining (just like comments on Trump article) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @77.138.239.137:. Could you suggest some content from a reliable sources (i.e. a non-tabloid newspaper) which you think should be added to the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)