Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed policies section

Certain editors have taken it upon themselves to use this section as a frame for a line-up of criticisms of Corbyn's policies. But the section heading is "Proposed policies". The section heading is NOT "Criticisms of policies".

Can anyone of those editors put up a valid reason why there should not be wholesale deletions from this section? Bear in mind that there is already a "Responses to leadership bid" section.

Further, certain editors seem to consider that not only should they load this section with quoted criticisms, but that the space given to criticism should far outweigh the space given to the listing of and detailing of his policies. This is completely ridiculous. It is not what the section is for at all.Boscaswell (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the last paragraph in the section "Other" should be deleted - there are no quotes from Corbyn of what his views actually are and it is purely criticism of him. However the rest of the policies section seems to me to be fairly balanced (apart from the criticism about the women's only carriages, I think one quote would be plenty). I would suggest possibly moving it (if he wins the leadership) into a full article "Policy positions of Jeremy Corbyn" similar to that for Cameron. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Further to my comments on the edit by Willwal, the redirect Willwal created did not work as a redirect as one then had to click on the "Jeremy Corbyn leadership election" in the small text reading: "Redirected from Jeremy Corbyn leadership election, 2015". I also think that his leadership bid does not deserve its own page. Again I would suggest moving the responses to his bid into the article on the leadership contest and (if he wins the contest) putting his policies into their own article Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

See new section on this talk page for further discussion Willwal (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether I'm viewing a totally different article to you, Absolutelypuremilk? Just take a look at the tax policies subsection of the proposed policies section. It takes just one line to launch into criticisms. Furthermore, although my last couple of lines edit (Kissinger) to the last para of the Other subsection was added before your response above, you stated in your response that it is purely criticism.

I stand by the initial thrust to this part of the Talk page. There needs to be a wholesale rewriting to eliminate the weight of criticism of his policies in a section which is intended to be an outline of his policies. To leave it as it is is a joke. Reaction to his policies belongs in the Reaction section. Funny, that!  :-) Boscaswell (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, but I still think that that paragraph should be deleted as it is purely comment on his foreign policy without actually stating what his foreign policy is. The tax policy section describes how the initial proposal was clarified and I think it is fairly even - there are 4 points which are pro Corbyn and two against Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy for Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh - convicted bombers of Israel's embassy

I have added a short referenced section to detail Corbyn's repeated public support for two bombers who were convicted, confessed to holding explosives and bomb making materials and whose convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal and ECHR. He also went of advocate their early release and for Botmeh's appointment as governor of Metropolitan University. This is noteworthy and has significant implications for a view of Corbyn's judgement and sympathies.[1] Cpsoper (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this issue should be mentioned in the article, but the new section partially duplicates content in the Foreign Affairs section. Philip Cross (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose a mention, but the section seems WP:UNDUE, especially having it's own heading. Could it not be incorporated into foreign affairs? AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It should certainly not be in the election section, although I agree it should not be in the main foreign affairs bit either (where it already was when this duplicate information was added), as it's not really about foreign affairs per se. Nor should it have its own heading - especially not such a loaded and misleading one - or be phrased in the loaded way that it is in the current version. Corbyn was not offering support to people he thought had committed the bombings, or who had admitted the bombings, he was campaigning about an alleged miscarriage of justice; you know, of the sort that have happened on multiple occasions in British legal history, in both terrorism and non-terrorism cases. Beyond that, I'd question whether it's notable or significant enough an issue to be mentioned at all. Whether one editor happens to think it has "significant implications" for Corbyn's judgment is irrelevant, even if it were to. Indeed, that's the kind of justification that should lead one to question the motives behind including it. N-HH talk/edits 20:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ps: if we're going to mention this kind of thing at all, it would be far more relevant and appropriate to focus on his work on the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases, which he is much more well known for and which were much more high profile cases in the UK - and which, as it happens, he was proven right about. That is, if we're looking for a balanced and comprehensive bio page rather than just more nudge-and-a-wink innuendo based on things one or two newspapers have suddenly seized on, for very obvious reasons, for one day in this election campaign. N-HH talk/edits 20:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is unfair as written and positioned. Corbyn has been active for years in trying to correct miscarriages of justice, particularly on behalf of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. Any mention of current campaigns should be placed in context. Sarah ^(talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started a miscarriages of justice section, in case anyone wants to expand it. Any other miscarriage of justice campaign can be discussed there. I don't know anything about the convicted men in this case, or why he's calling it a miscarriage of justice, so I'll leave that section for someone else to change or move. Sarah ^(talk) 03:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue of Corbyn advocacy for behalf of Botmeh and Alami received (and still receives) significant attention especially in Israeli and in Jewish medias around the worldHaaretz [2], The Jewish Chronicle, [3], Algemeiner Journal [4], The Times of Israel [5], Jerusalem Post [6] British and foreign medias also gave significant coverage to the issue [7]....and many others. So this topic has to be covered per WP:NPOV as it is being reported, analyzed and discussed by virtually all important medias, Jewish, Israeli, British and medias from other countries as well.Tritomex (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First, it doesn't have to be included, just because it has been mentioned in some newspapers. Secondly, as noted, it needs to be covered with due weight and in proportion to far more well-known cases, not just flung in as a "Look at this! Isn't Corbyn awful?" standalone entry in the way it currently is or with that much detail. I'll move/merge this content and trim it as appropriate. It's also worth noting that when User:Tritomex first inserted this material, it included a wholly misleading claim about Corbyn's position. N-HH talk/edits 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it had contain a mistake and when I realized this and came back to correct it, it was already removed. The idea that this case (Advocacy for Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh) is somehow connected to some other cases have to be backed by reliable secondary sources. Other way it is just WP:OR. The reasons why this case is attracting such attention is because both Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh were convicted of paying role in bombing of Jewish charity and Israeli embassy. (This is not what I think or believe, but what reliable secondary sources are saying) Second your recent edit implies that Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh were also innocent and wrongly convicted like the Guildford Four which is not just WP:OR but factually incorrect. They were not "jailed" but sentenced for terrorism against Jewish and Israeli targets. Also, as this subject is now discussed on talk page your recent addition does not have consensus. -Tritomex (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations and allegations of anti-semitism

Edits like this are not only untrue to the sources cited, but also violate BLP policy by insinuating, via poorly defined defined terms, that Corbyn is an anti-Semite by "association" with people who are "alleged" to be anti-Semitic.

First, an opinion piece from the Guardian isn't appropriate for this kind of allegation, period. @Philip Cross:, you should not have restored it.

Second, this TJC piece can't support the added text, The Jewish Chronicle and other papers queried Corbyn's connection with Raed Salah and Paul Eisen of Deir Yassin Remembered who is a Holocaust denier. The only "news" piece is that from TJC, which puts "a number of questions which he must answer in full and immediately." None of the questions actually allege any "association" with Paul Eisen beyond an alleged donation to Deir Yassin Remembered which, if you go on to read about it on wikipedia, describes a massacre (real, not alleged) of Palestinian villagers. The connection with Eisen is beyond tenuous, and mention of his views, whatever they are, are irrelevant to this page about Corbyn.

Third, the article section title Association with alleged anti-Semites is grossly (mis)leading, and is basically an accusation of anti-Semitism. The section can't have such an inflammatory and leading title. -Darouet (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have long viewed that section as remarkably WP:UNDUE and nothing other than a smear by association. Some mention may be appropriate. But, in its current format I believe it to be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BALASPS. A comment piece from an open political opponent certainly is not when presented as uncontested facts. Much of this has become an extraordinary WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not contain every single allegation and response made in the context of an election. AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, with so many claims and counter claims, why should it not be noted that the Jewish Chronicle had initially described the Deir Yassin massacre as "alleged"? AusLondonder (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns. "Association with alleged anti-Semites" is entirely beyond the pale. The section giving airtime to the various accusations by the JC is likely undue; it is perhaps tolerable as long as it doesn't give any play to tendentious accusations and/or conveys the strength of Corbyn's rejection of those accusations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Persistent downplaying of allegations of association with and sometimes defence of persistent and outspoken anti-semites by multiple sources

Corbyn had described Raed Salah as 'a very honoured citizen' and 'a voice who deserves to be heard'. Salah had been convicted of incitement to hatred in Israel, his home state and a few months later Salah opined 9-11 was instigated by Jews. Corbyn defended Stephen Sizer when it was pointed out he was linking to sites that advocated Holocaust denial. This year Stephen Sizer was disciplined by his diocese for suggesting that 9-11 was planned and executed by Israel. Erroneously as Corbyn's office pointed out Sizer's two misdeeds have been conflated. Abou Jahjah was defended by Corbyn publicly, when concerns about his public expression of hatred of Jews was already well known. Paul Eisen directs the Deir Yassin Remembered conference which Corbyn attended until 2013, he also gave money to the organisation. In 2007 the Guardian had exposed DYR as 'increasingly antisemitic' and Eisen its organiser as Holocaust denier. (Why has this telling reference been removed again?) 6 years later Corbyn continued to attend, according to Eisen's blog annually. Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami's release was sought by Corbyn after their confession of the possession of guns, and explosives and the Court of Appeal had upheld their conviction, and the ECHR subsequently confirmed the conviction. Nevertheless Corbyn went on to recommend Botmeh as a governor to London Met Uni, claiming he beleived the conviction was improper. He has described proscribed terror groups Hamas and Hizbollah as 'friends', a diplomatic nicety one doubts he would extend to Mr Blair, or Mr Cameron, let alone a representative of Israel.
All this material is well referenced and in the public domain. It is entirely consonant with WP:BLP for it to be present on this page. I am concerned that advocacy not encyclopaedic neutrality may be at work in removing this referenced material. No one forced Corbyn to defend these characters. It is not smearing by association, to list and describe these matters neutrally. Several sources have raised the concern that there is either a serious issue with Corbyn's judgement or his sympathies or perhaps both.
There is also a serious injustice in titling the section with the Jewish Chronicle, and removing, as a number of editors have done, references to other sources of these allegations, as though this was a criticism initiated by Jews alone, in fact it has been raised by other organs before and since. I appreciate the Mail has been deprecated as RS, and with some reason, but the publication date was 9/8/15, 3 days before the JC for example. I have reverted the section to reflect these concerns. By the way, should any enquire, I write as a Gentile.Cpsoper (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Cpsoper (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As repeatedly pointed out, Corbyn's WP bio isn't a forum for in-depth examination or discussion of specific allegations against him or for an implicit critique of his purported "judgement or sympathies" in one limited area, dumped here under loaded headings and pretty much all based on a few days' worth of hostile media controversy in one election campaign (and it's one small fraction of the broader media controversy about him at that). It's meant to be a balanced and long-view biography of a politician. The controversy itself can and should be noted – briefly, and alongside everything else – but you need to get a sense of proportion and/or to find other online outlets for this. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CP Soper, very well said and I agree entirely. I think this piece by Howard Jacobson on the subject of Corbyn's associations should be cited, but it would doubtless be quickly deleted by other editors. Philip Cross (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The last thing this part, or any part, of the page needs is yet more random op-eds being cited. And, btw, not that the detail should be debated, but Cpsoper's post is full of yet more misleading and BLP-breaching allegations, such as that Corbyn attended DYR "conference[s]" and did so "until 2013" – even citing Eisen's blog to suggest that this happened "annually". In fact, all we know about Corbyn's more recent "connections" with Eisen is that he attened one commemoration event for a historical massacre in a north London church in 2013, with Eisen's direct involvement in that event entirely unclear. Eisen's blog talks about such intimate links as his once having seen Corbyn cycling past him in his car in the rain on the Holloway Road. N-HH talk/edits 21:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is rather more substantial than you allow for, User:N-HH, given Corbyn's long term campaigning for the Palestinian cause, and the spread of these dubious associations over more than a decade. That the media is hostile to Corbyn does not mean the accusations against him are false or invented, far from it, or that they will recede in importance. No media commentator is currently cited on this issue, that is odd. Philip Cross (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Removed again per BLP and UNDUE. This is an obvious smear campaign, on the part of the Jewish Chronicle and the editors involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include this massively WP:UNDUE section. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:UNDUE are the relevant policy points, especially now the broader response section on this page has been cut back and put into the sub-article. No one's disputing that this aspect should be briefly mentioned, as one of the "controversies" that arose during the election, but I can only point out again that WP is not here to set up a detailed charge sheet or to present an analysis – whether sympathetic to Corbyn or hostile to him – of the accusations and insinuations, based on marginal and passing media reports. Whether the claims are "false or invented" or not is, for WP purposes, to some extent a side issue (although as it happens some reporting has played pretty fast and loose with the detail as well as massively overinterpreting what is known; as have some of the posts and edits here, as noted). This focus on the negative and the demand for excessive detail on this issue above any others says more about the views and obsessions of the WP editors pushing it, and about what is of "importance" to them, than it does about anything else. Even the media's mostly bored of this one now. N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Immigration

It is not clear from this article or Corbyn's own web-site what Corbyn's veiws on immigration are. It seems that he is in favour of futher immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.150.170 (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

See www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-jeremy-corbyn-policies-public-6126442

Corbyn speaks of "the huge contribution migrants have made to this country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.172.226 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussion about Corbyn. However, it may interest you to know the UK has a lower proportional rate of immigration than most countries such as Australia, USA, most of Europe etc. It also may interest you to know 1.5 million British citizens live in Australia and 2.2 million live in the European Union. You may be surprised to know the UK actually has some of the toughest anti-immigration, anti-asylum laws in the world. Don't let the facts get in the way of your blindly anti-immigrant views, though. AusLondonder (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how (while true) that's relevant to Corbyn's opinions, please keep the discussion strictly on Corbyn and his beliefs/policies. I would be happy for that quote to be in his "domestic policy" section along with the reference, what does everyone else think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Is "Deir Yassin Remembered" considered to be anti-Semitic

In the "Association with advocates of antisemitism" section, there's a bit about the "Deir Yassin Remembered" group, which then leads onto allegations that Corbyn mixed with an anti-Semite called Paul Eisen. I don't think "Deir Yassin Remembered" is an anti-Semitic group, and this should be made clear in the article. Theresonator (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[8] is clear that Corbyn does not support Holocaust Denial in any way - though Eisen seems to bear that title proudly [9] etc. demonstrate that DJR and associated groups also self describe as "anti-Zionist." Parsing that part won't work - what we would have to state was that Corbyn attended meetings of a group which Corbyn later found out was related to Holocaust Denial, which Corbyn does not support in any way. We have no source indicating whether Eisen was a HD at the time or not per the sources available. Trying to assert that a Holocaust Denial group is not anti-Semitic seems a pretty non-utile dichotomy. Collect (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim that DYR (sic) is antisemitic comes from a prominent Jewish anti-Zionist in 2007[10], the evidence in his view is strong enough for the author to disavow contact between the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and DYR. The same 2007 article cites 3 published essays Eisen (the director of DYR) has authored showing that Eisen contests the historicity of the Holocaust. Incidentally the same critic is among a list of other prominent Jewish anti-Zionists who have also criticised the JC over Corbyn[11].Cpsoper (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the interests of balance and accuracy have added this reference (even though some readers may find this situation somewhat bewildering).Cpsoper (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But is there actually any evidence that Deir Yassin Remembered itself is an anti-Semitic organisation, apart from the fact that the guy who ran it was later discovered to be a Holocaust denier? If not, then it should be made clear that there's no stigma to Corbyn attending events at which Deir Yassin Remembered were also present. Plenty of groups have had Holocaust deniers as members without the whole organisation being tainted. Theresonator (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt their is a reputable source available on the lines you desire. The "stigma" attached to Corbyn's attendance (as recently as 2013 it seems) is explicit in reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that Deir Yassin Remembered is considered to be an anti-Semitic organisation? I don't think it is, even though it has had an anti-Semitic person as a director. Theresonator (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, it self-describes as "anti-Zionist" which is likely strongly sourced. Collect (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As there's nothing wrong with being anti-Zionist, shouldn't it be made clear that the organisation itself is not known to be anti-Semitic? Theresonator (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Remembered is widely believed to be an antisemitic organisation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK, American anti-Zionist Jeffrey Blankfort and others have formally severed links with it for that reason. The following are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article, but provide links which detail this: http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/strange-alliances-jeremy-corbyn-and.html and http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=918 BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Castle House

Can we find another RS for his enrollment at Castle House school? I'm a bit uncomfortable with it being only sourced to the Daily Mail, which has an obvious axe to grind on this point. But a quick Google search doesn't immediately show up anything that's good to use. GoldenRing (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.sunnation.co.uk/jeremy-corbyns-a-laughing-stock/ This is another one Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sun is absolutely not a WP:RS, quite apparent when the article link is "Jeremy Corbyn's a laughing stock" AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a WP:RS. Please do not re-add the material without citing a reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is has a bias does not mean it is not reliable - see WP:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources or WP:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated_sources Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read one of the policies you quote, WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources, you will see that it states "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" - this is not a matter of differing viewpoints. This is about a fact, and a possible violation of WP:BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Until a reliable sources states that he attended this school, it should not be included. AusLondonder (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." from WP:RS Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at e.g. David Cameron#Immigration where a reference is cited for facts, and the title of the source calls his policy a complete failureAbsolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But that is inarguable. They wished for immigration of "tens of thousands", it was 298,000. That is objectively a failure. The Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid sources. They are absolutely unacceptable for a WP:BLP and rarely acceptable at all. Sources are required to be reliable when making contentious claims about a living person. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No use of low-quality tabloids for a BLP, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But the article is using the source for the number of net immigrants from a source that is obviously biased - it doesn't mean it is not reliable Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the Sun in use elsewhere on this article. If it is, go ahead and take it out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Would an Andrew Roth Parliamentary Profile suffice? This records Corbyn having attended Castle House Preparatory School, and predates all the media attention [12]

• That would suffice for me, what do Nomoskedasticity and AusLondonder think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Ok but I don't feel it is necessary to note fee-paying element in lead. A clear attempt to smear.AusLondonder (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the source is usable -- but it's too detailed for the lead period. It can go in a later section. And I'm guessing the source doesn't mention "fee paying". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity Could you clarify what you mean by "it's too detailed"? Which part are you wishing to remove? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Indicating which schools he went to belongs in a later section, not in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Dtellett: Good job digging that up. Can anyone put a date on this source? The history it gives seems to end in 04, but, AFAICT, the document itself gives no date internally and the Bishopsgate Institute index doesn't put a date on it either. GoldenRing (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the Bishopsgate Institute index does have the date in the detailed information for the article - 2005. GoldenRing (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

" Reverted vandalism attempt to remove sourced material"

Zhu Haifeng has claimed vandalism on my edits.

Here is an overview of my edits that were made:

In the Responses to leadership bid section, their Yvette Cooper quote was removed (where alleged links to anti-semitism was discussed). It is out of the context of the section, isn't her response to the leadership bid (but rather more generalised politics), and is a charged statement that is not neutral and isn't counter balanced. The article regarding anti-semitism, Corbyns' response and Jewish views are already mentioned elsewhere in the article, and are already perfectly balanced (which was why the oddly placed quote was removed).

Their edit and reference regarding "Conservatives for Corbyn" was also expanded upon, with references to The Telegraph encouraging people to sign up and vote for him, then later publishing an article saying Corbyn shouldn't win. It is important to show the full picture and impartiality and not a one-sided viewpoint.

The statement he quoted from "Janan Ganesh" was moved to the Labour Leadership 2015 article (it was not deleted, rather relocated). We cant have every statement made by every "Janan Ganesh"; Only significant quotes are needed. We don't need every weekend columnist and blogger to to take up vertical screenspace on Jeremy Corbyn's Biography.

Zhu Haifeng has a history of putting Anti-Corbyn related content and I feel their recent edits are not entirely constructive for a Biography of a Living person. I'd like consensus regarding this matter. 86.182.48.45 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to call them vandalism. Continued attempts to fill up this article with allegations of guilt (of anti-Semitism) by association should be strenuously resisted. It's appropriate that it is briefly mentioned, but the efforts to expand it are not justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And the constant addition of yet more random op-eds from marginal commentators, such as this pithy, opinionated and uninformative addition. N-HH talk/edits 09:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

N-HH, no offense taken, i see where you are coming from after looking at the editing history. plse dont confuse content addition with editor opinion! I am neither pro nor anti-Corbyn, living across the pond i didnt know about him, sorry. I read the opinion article in the heart of the beast paper and found it clearly opinionated (I prefaced my edit with that) and containing bits of information, that arent included on this page, that ARE informative, the one I chose was too provocative. what I am hearing through (also on your userpage) is anger. please chill, read the "opinionated wsj article" and work with me to make a meaningful sentence on venezuela or on other things from it ok?--Wuerzele (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to 86.182.48.45 (talk) Yes, I have claimed you have vandalised sourced material. The section needs to provide quotations from a range of people, not only those who have spoken in support of Corbyn. The section was unbalanced and needed quotes from critics, too. To delete quotations from those you don't agree with isn't in the spirit of fair-minded Wikipedia editing. Unlike you, I haven't deleted quotes inserted by other Editors. If a section mostly, or entirely, carries quotes only from one side, it is imperative to provide others, too. The quotation from Janan Ganash is no less significant than that of the Corbyn supporters already quoted, and follows several quotes praising him in the same paragraph, which I have retained. If you wish, you can find three critical quotes to place in that paragraph to balance the three supportive ones, or I can do that instead.

There remain more quotes in support of Corbyn in this section than those opposed. It's essential to provide quotes from each side, not merely provide names of critics or move the comments elsewhere. It is neither "Anti-Corbyn" nor "Pro-Corbyn" to ensure that sections and articles contain quotes from both sides. And for the record, I am neither pro- nor anti-Corbyn, merely ensuring that quotes from both sides are provided, both in this section and throughout the article. I'm surprised you haven't many any discernible effort to do that, and have instead removed the smaller number of quotes from those critical of him. It's also been difficult to communicate easily with you before now, as your IP address seems to change frequently. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But that's the fundamental problem with much of the editing on this page: it isn't meant to be an ever-expanding compendium of daily quotes from journalists, commentators and marginal political figures, whether pro- or anti-Corbyn. It needs to be a broad and encyclopedic overview of Corbyn's entire political career and, especially when it comes to the current leadership election, to focus only on the most significant observations and interventions. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And you talk about balance, but this edit just now, for example, leaves the paragraph starting with criticism of Corbyn and then ending with criticism of his, and Diane Abbott's, defence of his actions (while also relying on the random opinions of a blog editor and suddenly introducing mention of Press TV where none had been there before). N-HH talk/edits 09:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree that the page can't be an "ever-expanding compendium of daily quotes", of course - but it does need to be much more balanced than it is, with quotes from BOTH sides, not just from supporters. Since nearly all the quotes are from supporters, and the critical ones have been deleted, it is only fair to have provided a relevant and critical quote as a replacement - which incidentally appeared in the original source - to provide a paltry balance, at best, to the surfeit of supportive comments. I haven't deleted or moved ANY of the supportive quotes, and only added a much smaller number of critical ones. Even with my additions, it remained a section with mostly supportive quotes - the imbalance hardly ideal in any Wikipedia article.

If you're not happy with the much smaller number of critical comments being at the beginning, middle or end, then it's fine to change them. The most relevant factor is that this section, and the article, are meant to provide a balance of views - we're not (hopefully) trying to create a 'fan page'. As it stands, the article is currently seriously imbalanced. You could really do your bit, too, to help ensure that the section, and the rest of the article, quote from both sides. Thank you. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP's are not for a range of media commentary on a person, their political beliefs or electability. To suggest this page reads as a "fan page" is not true. It does already contain some criticism and highlighting of previous potentially unpopular and controversial statements. Another article does exist regarding the actual campaign, though, Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 AusLondonder (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AusLondonder (talk), thanks for your reply. My comments about the current imbalance were about one section, 'Responses to leadership', not the whole article. I didn't say at any time that the whole article reads as a "fan page": I said that "we're not (hopefully) *trying to create* a "fan page" - very different from implying that it already is! The section 'Responses to leadership' remains unbalanced, as the few critical quotes have been removed, while the preponderance of supportive quotes remains. Of course, it's very important that there are supportive quotes in the section - and as already made clear, I haven't deleted any of them myself. I will therefore look for critical quotes to balance the supportive ones. I'd be very grateful if you'd help to do the same. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

'Political views' section

As it stands, the 'political views' section is full of content that is only relevant to the policies he proposed in his leadership campaign. Would it be possible to slim the section down and remove much of the text that effectively doubles the stuff in the campaign article? Willwal (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on doing a reorganisation once the constant edits today have slowed down, to avoid edit conflicts. If nothing else there are bits of transport policy from all over that can be merged together into one section, etc rather than having a big chunk simply labeled 'domestic policy'. I also plan on making a section on devolution for his policies on ireland, scotland and republicanism, which are currently scattered across the policy area. --ERAGON (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea Willwal. 86.159.206.187 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Him and her resigned from the shadow cabinet

this edit from User:Dingowasher is rubbish and false - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=680700126&oldid=680699590 no one can resign from a position they have not been appointed to and actually are expecting to be sacked from - the citation also does not support it - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Taxation & Economy section

Amid the massive amount of edits that occurred today, a large chunk of text was removed which currently leaves the article heavily against Corbyn as perWP:UNDUE.

Could someone with edit permissions add this back:

Corbyn's economic platform has been endorsed by a number of prominent economists, including David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, and Steve Keen. They were among 41 academics who signed a letter to The Guardian which argued: "The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF.". The Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said he was unsurprised at support for anti-austerity campaigners like Corbyn following the "disappointment" of policies pursued by New Labour. Robert Skidelsky offered a qualified endorsement of Corbyn's proposals to carry out QE through a National Investment Bank.

Someone seems to have added it back in. The policy section went through a massive overhaul today. --ERAGON (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks 86.159.206.187 (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Bias returns

Following his election, one more WP:POVPUSHING editors have returned to violate WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Editors have removed supporting statements from Nobel Prize winning economists and replaced with partisan criticism. Editors have added opinion pieces from the Daily Telegraph as reliable sources. Most sections contain just criticism, now. Could all editors take a look and try to balance the article. What do others think? User:Nomoskedasticity and User:N-HH have worked on this before. What are your thoughts? AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it was mostly fine several hours ago and some editors have filled the majority of the sections with an undue balance of negative criticism 86.134.110.33 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of what has been added belongs in a separate article, where there's more scope for commentary on political positions. It doesn't belong in the main BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted ad nauseam before, WP biographies are meant to be encyclopedic overviews of an individual and their history, not an opportunity to cite lots of media commentary – including in this case even utterly trivial and obscure op-eds from the Register of all places – in a bid to present a detailed analysis of whether each of his policy positions is a bad idea (or indeed a good one). Tbh I'm not even sure there's a need for separate articles to include much of this kind of thing. WP pages are not a substitute debating forum. N-HH talk/edits 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with that point - if there's no place for it in this article, there's no place for it anywhere. --ℕ ℱ 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Image

The image in the infobox was changed without comment. The old image was better quality. Is there any reason not to go back to that? Tigerboy1966  07:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the new one is better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I also think new one is better, he looks happier and more presentable 86.134.110.33 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My pref is for the new one for now. If you find a better one, please let us know. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this one? http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4113156.1434381148!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg TDK1881 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I smell a rat. The new image is blurry, it is half lost by a pinkish light too making the smile look strange. I suspect that those who have changed the image have political reasons for having done so. Go back to the old one or at least find one that is decent quality! 213.114.30.82 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

Jeremy is not a member of the Privy Council, therefore he's not 'The Right Honourable'.

Source Finnaldo89 (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for that! AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The leader of the official opposition is always appointed to the Privy Council if they are not already member. Corbyn was appointed today. (86.147.194.53 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC))

I know, but he wasn't when it was initially edited and therefore it was, then, inaccurate.

Corbyn is a Republican and there was some confusion as to whether he would swear the oath, which he obviously did.

Finnaldo89 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of today's media coverage - this, for example - seems to suggest that he still hasn't joined officially, and hasn't even decided whether he will or not. MFlet1 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy and transport section

Quote: "Analyses cited by The Guardian and Financial Times newspapers among others, of the renationalisation policies advocated by Corbyn, indicate a figure of at least £124 billion would be needed to purchase controlling shares in the "Big Six" national energy providers plus the National Grid". This may be an accurate quote but it is misleading because it implies that £124 billion in cash would be required. In fact, no cash would be required. It would be purely a paper transaction. The shareholders would be given government stock in exchange for their shares, as was done for the nationalisations of the 1940s. Biscuittin (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by government stock and can you find a reliable source to back this analysis up? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Political positions of Corbyn

I think the best way to maintain the encyclopaedic content regarding many Corbyn's political views without overwhelming this WP:BLP is to create a separate article in the same style as Political positions of David Cameron and Political positions of Barack Obama. I have started Draft:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn which I would really appreciate assistance on. AusLondonder (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I have added the content from the main Corbyn article to your draft and changed the subsection headings to section headings. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Media Commentary section

There has been a lot of discussion (quite rightly) about which things should be included on this page but there seems to have been a very different balance struck to that on the David Cameron page, which has a large amount of detail in a section entitled "Media Commentary". Do we think that it would be appropriate to either introduce a similar section here (or add it into policies and career) or should this section be removed or significantly trimmed from Cameron's page? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to try and gain consensus on David Cameron's article. If Corbyn becomes PM I'm sure there'll be a lot of material to fill out a nice long article like Cameron's. --ℕ ℱ 23:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that there is lots of media commentary on Cameron's page, and there is none here. Either one could be correct but we do have to be reasonably consistent between the two. While Cameron's page is far too long, what I would like to discuss here, or on a different talk page if you can suggest one, is how much media commentary there should be on a BLP Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Deputy Opposition Leader

Hello! Watson is officially designated Deputy Leader of the Opposition. [13] Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 37.47.5.132 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Image 1
• Image 2
  Image 2

Which image should be used at the top of the article, for the time being? I think the former image is superior, for many reasons, but particularly because it actually looks like a portrait. It would be best to settle on one file and keep it rather than continually changing it. -- Hazhk (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2 is licenced on Flickr as non-commercial and needs deleting. JMiall₰ 15:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2

Could I ask whether anyone has preferences between these two images? Image 1 seems to be poorly lit – I would suggest using Image 2 instead. Willwal (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2. TwoTwoHello (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 1. Superior as a portrait image. The second image is a crop of a file already used in the 'Policies and views' section, so we would simply lose an image from the article. -- Hazhk (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image one, the lightings poor but as a portrait it is preferential. For the time being only, I am certain better pics will soon be freely released. Govindaharihari (talk)

Favour Image 1 for now. Agree with arguments by User:Govindaharihari and User:Hazhk. AusLondonder (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 1 is better than Image 2 in several different ways, but unfortunately Image 1 makes him look as though he is lit with a Hadean amber glow. Can someone find a better image, please? -- 212.126.151.94 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2 is better for me as it gives a better impression of what Corbyn actually looks like. How often do you see him with a cheesy grin and a tie? Tigerboy1966  06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Image 2. Image 1 looks awful. Blurred, tinted with orange or pink. It looks like an image from the 1950s 'Great Party Leaders Handbook of China' or some such. And I suspect that those who put it here know that. 213.114.30.82 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Snow Image 2 - This change should be made immediately. The current image may fall afoul of WP:MUG. Additionally, we have to find more images for Wikimedia. Could someone better versed in licencing issues tell me if this is a "free use" image of Corbyn? NickCT (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Why do they have to have those curious descriptions though? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Which "curious descriptions" are you referring to? NickCT (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, things like 'Man in yellow shirt looking at someone slantindicular' for example? -rather than just his name? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Indeed, it is rather peculiar; amusing though. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

'Editor of Wikipedia Articles Contemplates Navel'  :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Ah..... The alternative text. I don't get it either. I usually don't put in alt text. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is no clear snow close here - allow discussion thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only that -- there's a section on this issue just above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have fixed image 1, and I'm working on getting a better new image within a week or so.. not a fan of Image 2 because it makes him look like a "grumpy old man" ...--Stemoc 06:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

New choice

This change gives an excellent result. Assuming we can use it, I think it's easily better than the other two. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, it can't be used, because there are free images already available, such as the two above. The free-use exception does not apply if there are free images available, even if they are inferior in quality. Perhaps a request to Corbyn's office for them to allow it to be used under a suitable free license would help the situation? -- The Anome (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and The Anome: - Are you sure it isn't free use? It's sported on a number of .gov.uk sites without attribution. Aren't works commissioned by the British government public domain as they are in the US? NickCT (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Unless specified otherwise, works of the British national government are crown copyright#United Kingdom, and their use without attribution on .gov.uk sites does not mean that they are the work of the British government either. If the UK's Open Government Licence was explicitly specified as applying to the image, then I believe we could use it, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been. -- The Anome (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: - Sigh...... Well that a pity. Darn Brits whine even more about copyright protection than we do in the US. NickCT (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another potential image source

This YouTube video is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license, and stills from it should be Wikipedia-license-compatible. It shows Corbyn in his natural environment; no shirt, vest showing, no artificial media polish. Some frames are quite flattering, others, if you chose unkindly, much less so. I can't see any sign that this is ripped off from other media; it's mostly a single shot from a single position, but certainly video edited with what look like cut-aways, but there's also a fair bit of wobbly-cam, making me think this is something like a production by local Labour Party people, something supported by the captions at the end. -- The Anome (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas, this video was uploaded by a contributor who has also marked BBC footage as being CC-licensed, so I can't be 100% sure of their tagging reliability. I've marked the image for deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've creating a third candidate by cropping and adjusting levels of an existing photo. Not great, but perhaps better than the current candidates until something better turns up - I can't decide. Doing a wider crop is tricky, as the wind is affecting the jacket - I could perhaps take a bit of yellow out of the image which might improve it, but may make it too dark:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3

Rwendland (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rwendland: - Thanks for the additional option. Still think image 2 is the way to go. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of hat portrait as featured

I think the current main image is a very nice photo portrait so I have nominated it as a feature picture. If it was featured then perhaps this would improve consensus on what photo should be used. JJARichardson (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be a nice image, but it is one in which half of his face is obscured and he's wearing a ridiculous hat. The former reason alone is enough to disqualify it as a suitable portrait for use in the infobox. We should also aim for some equivalence with other politicians' articles. A posed portrait, such as Image 1 used above, should be what we aim for. -- Hazhk (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is that hat "ridiculous"? Does that affect his political judgement? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the hat is ridiculous at all. I imagine Corbyn, who seems almost completely devoid of vanity, is wearing it because it keeps his head warm. (Note to self: Winter is coming, go out and buy newsboy cap) -- The Anome (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Statements on Hamas and Hezbollah

The section titled 'Palestine' contains Corbyn's response to an interviewer's question about his remarks at a public meeting in 2009. As it does not make sense to include Corbyn's response without referencing the original incident, I added sourced material with Corbyn's relevant remarks. The text was removed by Nomoskedasticity, with the explanation that it "Needs consensus, so that we can be confident it's not simply part of a smear campaign."

Corbyn's remarks are properly cited. The source provided contains a video of Corbyn saying every word attributed to him. Clarification to objections regarding its inclusion in the article would be welcome. --Sammy1857 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The level of detail is excessive, in my view -- WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is controversy surrounding certain remarks, it is appropriate to cite them in whole to make sure Corbyn's views are accurately represented. The cited quotes total 4-5 sentences, and do not lengthen the section disproportionately. Paraphrasing them opens the door to editorialization, while removing them entirely misrepresents his stated positions.--Sammy1857 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessarily weighted against Corbyn as per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Judging by your previous edits I see this might be a personal matter to you, but keep in mind, this is a Biography of a living person and should be treated as such; There is already another section of the article that contains the Jewish communities concerns regarding Corbyns previous "associates" and allegations of his anti-semitism, Corbyns response, and the Jewish response to his reply. Additional weight against Corbyn is Undue and attempts to make the article seem like he is some appeaser of extremism and to make him guilty by association should be heavily resisted. The article should only have an overview of the events as it were. Anything more is undue. 31.48.169.69 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how my previous editing history or allegations of anti-semitism have anything to do with my contribution, which primarily quoted Corbyn's direct statements about Hamas, Hezbollah, and Zionism, all of which are relevant to his view on Palestine and were previously largely unmentioned (i.e. the statement on the labeling of Hamas as a "terrorist organization" & the statement on Zionism). I made no mention of anti-semitism or the Jewish community-- Corbyn's views on Hamas and Hezbollah are not limited to either. Moreover, there were no attempts to make Corbyn appear "guilty by association," as there was no value judgement made or commentary attached to his remarks. The only thing I did was quote Corbyn. It is important to include relevant quotes that attest to the views of a person at a certain period of their life within their biography. I understand concerns about editorialized commentary, but this is not such a case. I only included Corbyn's own remarks, within the appropriate section and with the appropriate context, as is required.--Sammy1857 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Sammy1857 is engaging in WP:POVPUSHING and has a conflict of interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict and related matters, including having previously violated discretionary sanctions. AusLondonder (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, my contribution did not state an opinion, or point of view, but directly quoted Corbyn on a relevant issue. Unless you can challenge the authenticity of the source or the multiple other news outlets that link to the video of Corbyn and quote his remarks, then these quotes belong on this page. Engaging in WP:POVPUSHING includes suppressing Corbyn's own words, not acknowledging them. --Sammy1857 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Engaging in WP:POVPUSHING can also mean adding undue weight against a subject to make someone appear guilty by association. The issue of Corbyn's alleged associates was already discussed in the article and is already balanced. Additional weight is WP:UNDUE 31.48.169.69 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote in question is not concerned with Corbyn's alleged associations. It includes Corbyn's stated view on British policy towards Hamas and Hezbollah, and his position on Zionism, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. There is no commentary that attempts to link the behavior of Hamas or Hezbollah with that of Corbyn, to make a value judgement on said behavior, or to advance other allegations about Corbyn's associations with either party. It only serves to record his stated position. Giving undue weight to his statements would include quoting extensively from the 5min+ speech, not adding a limited number of quotes that share his previously unacknowledged positions on the subject. As it stands, the section only briefly mentions Corbyn's response to a reporter's question in 2015; there is no coverage of his original 2009 statements, which means that his views on the British government's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization and position on Hezbollah, as well as his views on Zionism, remain unaddressed. Suppressing this information and other documentation of the original incident in 2009 in favor of only mentioning Corbyn's response to a single allegation in 2015 is highly misleading and gives undue weight to a viewpoint that is not neutral and that was shared 6 years after the original incident. Unless there are objections to the authenticity of the source, the relevant remarks from 2009 should be included in the appropriate section.Sammy1857 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't take away the fact having those additional quotes in succession gives undue weighting and that doesn't take away from the fact that you've cherrypicked quotes to leave the reader a negative impression which is NOT a neutral point of view. You quoted "should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah". What you quoted suggests that Corbyn thinks the government should side with them. What Corbyn really said was "should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah; that is the only way to bring about peace". You've also quoted "We are opposed to Zionism." when Corbyn said "We are opposed to Zionism and what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people". In both cases, the full quote gives a different picture to what Corbyns' intended aims are in his speech. You can't cherrypick quotes, reference tabloid journalism and try to reflect your personal bias on a BLP. Either way, the first quote would add undue weight against Corbyn about that particular issue. Also, keep in mind those particular quotes were all taken under the context of a "stop the war" event, but they are framed to make it look like Corbyn is an appeaser of extremism and hates Israel, when in reality, he just wants to... stop the war. We need to keep the article neutral, balanced, and in perspective. (You might not have seen, but there's a quite a bit of smearing currently from the right wing media). But thank you for your reply; I am still against adding this as per WP:UNDUE but we can see what other people have to say. 31.48.169.69 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In an attempt to make the segment as concise as possible I opted to highlight the most relevant pieces of information, i.e. Corbyn's statement on Hamas, on UK policy towards the group and Hezbollah, and on Zionism. I also made sure to say that the speech was given at a meeting hosted by Stop the War Coalition in an effort to add context. That said, I think your point is valid and I would be open to including the fragment at the latter end of the first quote, as well as expanding on the second quote about Zionism. However, Corbyn's statement that labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization is a "big, big historical mistake," and that Hamas is "an organization dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people," are both critical to understanding his position on Palestine. Sharing Corbyn's opinion on the nature of Hamas and the British government's designation of the organization and of Hezbollah in a section titled Palestine, with which both groups are heavily associated, is not putting undue weight on the opinion, but acknowledging its existence. As it stands, the section contains absolutely no mention of his opinion about Hamas, or about UK policy towards the organization and Hezbollah, or about Zionism.--Sammy1857 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas is not designated as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

However, if a WP:RS states that Corbyn has been critical of Zionism I would not oppose inclusion of a sentence stating that. AusLondonder (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Both Hamas and Hezbollah appear on the UK's list of proscribed terrorist organizations (specifically their military wings). Corbyn's opinion of both organizations and the British government's behavior towards them are intrinsically linked to his position on Palestine. And I agree that his views on Zionism should also be included.--Sammy1857 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas and Hezbollah are not designated terrorist organisations in the United Kingdom. Their separate but related military wings are. For example, if a person donated money to Hamas that would not be illegal AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Without debating technicalities, which I'd be happy to do on our separate talk pages, Corbyn stated "The idea that an organization dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people [...] should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah." Corbyn is arguing that the government labelled Hamas as a terrorist organization, that this is a "big, big historical mistake," and that the government should reconsider its position. Debating whether Corbyn was referring to Hamas as a whole or whether he was referring solely to its military wing is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that this statement reflects an important opinion on Hamas and Hezbollah that needs to be included in the section on Palestine.--Sammy1857 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Added the statement, then saw this section in the talk page. It is covered by a reliable source and there's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Drsmoo (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You cannot add that material in contrast to the consensus here. Please gain consensus first and explain why that material does not violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP Also, the page uses British English so "organisation" not "organization" AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. I'm waiting to hear a reason why a statement covered and reported on by reliable sources it would be either WP:UNDUE or violate WP:BLP aside from WP:I just don't like it. Drsmoo (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not every detail should be covered in the main BLP. Newspapers are full of stories about him on large numbers of issues; not all of them are important enough to be included here. It's a matter of judgment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "matter of judgement". That is why we use reliable sources. Using "judgement" is the definition of POV-pushing. Another example of blatant POV pushing and misuse of Wikipedia would be "However, if a WP:RS states that Corbyn has been critical of Zionism I would not oppose inclusion of a sentence stating that." Drsmoo (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If we used your perspective, we'd include everything that ever appeared in a reliable source. Since we're not going to do that, it's a matter of judgment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You should speak in singular, rather than plural, as you're giving your own, personal opinion. Corbyn's statements on Hamas have been the subject of incredible media scrutiny and attention. They are highly notable and have been reported on in multiple reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And so we should include coverage of them somewhere -- but not necessarily in the main BLP. Perhaps in a "political positions of" article, or the campaign article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Organization" was used as that is the spelling used in Foreign Policy. I am currently posting the section on the Political Positions article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

alleged and according to the times

the Times is a reliable source and everything in the content has been said in the source - it has also not been denied by Corbyn - User:Absolutelypuremilk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=prev&oldid=681912467

removed pending edit brought here for discussion and consensus Govindaharihari (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute that he and Abbott had a brief relationship in the past - [14], [15], etc. - even discounting (as we should) the tabloid stuff. The question is whether it's sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in the article. Given that Corbyn appointed Abbott to the shadow cabinet, and that Abbott is quoted in articles about him, I tend on balance towards supporting the idea of a brief mention in the article - regardless of whether Corbyn himself (or his supporters) think it's relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Mirror (yes I know it's a tabloid) said that "Corbyn allies said it is none of anyone's business" i.e. not "it's not true" and also said the "pair made no secret of being lovers" [16] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The addition by Absolutepuremilk included the disclaimers, alleged and according to - I do not support an inclusion in a wp:blp that needs such classifiers. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose this per WP:BLPGOSSIP. It is simply not notable enough. Abbott was a Shadow under Miliband for a time. Did they have a relationship? Don't accept The Telegraph (a high-brow but nevertheless gutter tabloid) is a WP:RS. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This former liaison is likely to mentioned by the press for some time, so I do not think it can be permanently excluded. Unfortunately, most of the sources seem to rely on hearsay evidence. Comments by Jane Chapman, Corbyn's first wife, have been cited by the Telegraph (not a tabloid), and might seem to confirm the veracity of the claims, but her references to Diane Abbott are potentially libelous and should not be used. Philip Cross (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What is or is not a tabloid is open for debate. Many would view The Telegraph as a tabloid in all but name, especially in recent years. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• clear blpgossip, exclude for now until we see what becomes of this issue ℕ ℱ

In general, allegations and rumours make for poor biographies. Collect (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)