Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Cameron's speech

I didn't see it myself, but it seems Cameron made some rather strong accusations in his Conservative Party address this morning that we should probably cover here (see this BBC article as an example). No doubt there'll be plenty of column inches written about it in the days to come. This is Paul (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cameron's speech seems somewhat extreme. What Corbyn apparently said, in 2011, is here - "There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Centre was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram. Can’t we learn some lessons over this?". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to see the thing in context. We'll have to see how this develops. This is Paul (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Camerons speech requires covering on his page if his comments or the speech is really noteworthy, adding the delibrately attacking partisan political coments of the leader of the opposition party here is unduely attacking, imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that covering it here would be a personal attack against the subject. We did not make the comments after all; they were made by the Prime Minister, and they're pretty strong accusations to level at the leader of the opposition. Whether we cover them here though depends on the impact of his words. This is Paul (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Camerons comments were a clear personal attack, a biased and partisan one at that, such as Britain hating accusations deserve no repeating here. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

But we can't afford to be partisan ourselves. We just report the facts, regardless of whether we like what Cameron said or not (and I personally didn't like it). This is Paul (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn's spokesman's response is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not report reported lies about a living person unless portrayed as such. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what we would do. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In such a clear attacking partisan situation as the opposite leader speech at his party conference to his loyal supporters, it is much better to not report his comments here than to then have to report that they were pure biased partisan lies when that was so obvious in the first place. This is Paul post your desired addition here for us to discuss.Govindaharihari (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Since we don't know if/how this will develop then there's no "desired addition" to post here yet, but as the talk page is a place for discussing potential material for an article then it is the appropriate place to query whether to include it. You have stated your opposition, but beyond that I really don't know what your beef is in arguing about it. This is Paul (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You really don't get it do you This is Paul, see your comment, Cameron made some rather strong accusations in his Conservative Party address this morning that we should probably cover here, such biased additions and even suggestions that such content should be added to a wikipedia bio, the life story of a living person, is sad really. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What is sad is that you can't seem to move on from this issue, but are instead levelling accusations of bias at me. My original suggestion had nothing to do with bias or personal opinion. At this point, and as my final post on this thread, I feel it is appropriate to remind you of the Wikipedia policy about civility. This is Paul (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not every partisan criticism and personal attack made (especially one in which the subjects words have been maliciously and deliberately taken out of context) during a political party conference speech about another person are worthy of inclusion here. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If Corbyn experienced an unusual burst of unparliamentary language and replied that Cameron was a "lying prick" would that deserve coverage in Cameron's article? Would Cameron's likely abusive reply then need coverage here? Where would it end? AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hard left

The hard left article, dealing with the usually pejorative term applied to Labour politicians in the '90s, could use some more eyeballs. Particularly over who should be included there, particularly Corbyn and Abbott. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

With the hard left article asserting that Corbyn is part of the hard left; anyone willing to test the water and edit this page to say that Corbyn is on the hard left? (Garageland66 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC))

No. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As Andy Dingley says, hard left is a pejorative term, and Corbyn is someone who the term has been applied to by those in the sources. Clearly the Corbyn article shouldn't list him as being hard left, it is a derogatory term and is not relevant in a BLP, especially for a politician. However that doesn't mean that it is not relevant to discuss him in the hard left article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added the hard left description using the source that is referenced on that page. If it's reliable enough for the hard left page, then it's reliable enough for the Jeremy Corbyn page. However if it IS considered a derogatory term, then both pages should be amended to reflect the consensus. (Garageland66 (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

I'm not involved with the "hard left" page and don't wish to be. But the discussion here clearly shows a lack of consensus for adding that material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that the inclusion of the term hard left in this article has been overturned. The alleged "reliable source" was also rejected. Can I ask editors to ensure consistency, to ensure that good sense prevails on the hard left page and that Corbyn is not described with this derogatory term. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC))

Protected edit request on 30 September 2015 - The Privy Council Issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I note that I have been excluded from being able to edit this page - why?

Mabelina (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you are not an administrator and the page is protected due to edit warring from people that should know better. --ℕ ℱ 00:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that - it is a great pity that the BBC spread an inaccurate story about Privy Counsellors having to kneel at their investiture, a procedure reserved - of course - only for those receiving the accolade of the Realm. It would be better if Wiki could correct this & I am happy to advise further if need be. M Mabelina (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources which contradict the information in the bbc article, but in the context of the discussion around Corbyn. To go and find primary sources not mentioning Corbyn would be WP:OR. --ℕ ℱ 00:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me advise you that it has been decided that royal courtiers will work out a way for the avoidance of The Queen being embarrassed. This ceremony, unlike National Honours Lists, has never before been exposed to such scrutiny & in fact (and fortunately for Corbyn) no one will ever know what happened behind closed (royal) doors - it seems Corbyn has stumbled across a way of causing a problem to HMG and HM - unfortunately this will not be rehearsed in public by those in the know - or at least not yet - leaving a vacuum for the non-aficionados to fill. Nonetheless, it would be far better that Wiki does not propagate inaccuracies issued by ignorant BBC journalists. How else to put it - it will be sorted..! M Mabelina (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I find your answer fairly incomprehensible, but I would reiterate without reliable sources there's not much to be done.
All I am pointing out is twofold 1, he has been appointed a PC & 2. he won't be kneeling.--ℕ ℱ 01:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

From The Lord Prescott, the public learned on BBC's Sunday Politics that Privy Counsellors do not "kneel", they "hop" - Prescott's description of the ceremony was indeed quite witty! qv. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34373851. M Mabelina (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that jolly anecdote would not be regarded as a reliable source in this instance. --ℕ ℱ 01:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but since this protocol has never before been breached in such fashion there is no precedence.... M Mabelina (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
PS. surely Wiki readers would like to be disabused of the notion, that a) Corbyn is not yet a PC; and, b) that he will have to kneel before The Queen? M Mabelina (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Point a) was fully discussed in an earlier section on this page, and no further action is likely to be taken without consensus at this time. Point b) you have provided no reliable source therefore no action can be taken at this time. --ℕ ℱ 01:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there but my edit was deleted?

Point a) was rubbished by various as far as I can tell - he has been appointed a PC by www.gov.uk & b) there is no reliable proof "at this time" yet Wiki continues to propagate inacurracies - you see the difference? M Mabelina (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This really all boils down to who you believe - & I should hope you could look into this and as to why http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/government-opposition/ refers to Corbyn as Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP on the said webpage unless it is mistaken? M Mabelina (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of the usual prompt retort, I presume "point noted"? Let's move on (& please correct accordingly) - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop going on with this Privy Council bullshit. He is not a member yet. Simple as that. The Privy Council's own website says so, and he says so himself. We will not add false information on the basis of your bizarre rants. AusLondonder (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Corbyn has still not been added to the Privycouncil official website, 26 people have been added in 2015 but Corbyn is not one of them yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• In addition to that, as already made clear several times:
  • Labour Party website, which does not state he is a member (unlike actual members)
  • Official parliamentary website does not list him as a member (unlike actual members
  • The Guardian
  • BBC interview in which he says he IS NOT A MEMBER

Don't forget the editor pushing this bullshit has violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and inserted this crap "Following which he was tested regarding his republican credentials as to whether he would follow protocol by kneeling before The Queen at his subsequent investiture (which is a private ceremony) by disingenuously muddling the whole issue by saying he is "yet to decide"" AusLondonder (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear AusLondonder - I have just made some tidying amendments to the Corbyn article with which I trust you will concur, since they are in line with this page's talk comments... I am in no way enamoured by your uber-aggressive language and attitude but this article is hardly worth falling out over, you will notice no attempt to explain further Privy Council protocol [1] has been made; suffice to say that Corbyn is a most unusual case because anybody else would by now delight in being a Privy Counsellor and whilst The Queen technically has the power to "command" appointment I can assure you that The Royal Household made appropriate discreet enquiries prior to HMG's announcing his appointment. I like Corbyn, but just so we get the facts straight, it is he who has wriggled around on this issue, not the Government nor Buckingham Palace. Furthermore this whole vexed issue surfaced when the BBC did indeed test his republican credentials (in the usual probing journalistic way) so please do not make false assertions. In the spirit of co-operation a quick note of acknowledgement would be appreciated and I do hope you approve of my latest tidying etc and let's work together to ensure that no buffoons introduce patently incorrect info into this article. Many thanks for your co-operation. Best M Mabelina (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear AusLondonder - it is curious as to why you are attempting to escalate matters, when in fact we are all for the most part working together, nonetheless since you deign to contradict what is plain to see on www.gov.uk & www.parliament.uk, please be so kind as to answer the following: AusLondonder's aforementioned statement beggars belief - whilst the Conservative Party can be construed as political opponents of the Labour Party, it is quite incredible to suggest that the Government plays mischief with formal announcements (& by extension, somehow, Wiki's authority is greater than Her Majesty's Government); perhaps you could clarify whether this is what you meant to say, AusLondonder?
PS. needless to say it is not worth the bother trying to explain that Corbyn is a PC despite his trying to cover this up before Labour's Annual Conference for reasons you might just be able to conjecture, but what bemuses me is how two of the most authoritative websites, namely www.parliament.uk & www.gov.uk are seemingly dismissed by "Wiki" in favour of adhering to those which have not yet been updated..?
Does Wiki as a whole regard, or is it you who regards, these official government and parliamentary websites as ultra vires? If the former, I should be utterly astonished. Anyway do let me know why this is such a big issue when the facts are plain for all to see. [2] Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, you know the page is no longer protected, right? This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is now that Corbyn is not, at least yet, a member based on the overwhelming number of sources that say so. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi AusLondonder - if you intend to reply to me to form part of your consensus, perhaps you could advise whether any of "the overwhelming number of sources" which you cite are more authoritative than www.parliament.uk and/or www.gov.uk? It would be good to clear this up, since you launched various accusations. Looking forward to hearing - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do, see the sources above including his official parliament.uk website AusLondonder (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying AusLondonder. No doubt you appreciate that someone who gets themselves into a hole as has Corbyn wouldn't necessarily update their own parliamentary website pronto, although honesty is always deemed to be the best policy. It is thoroughly amazing, don't you think? that the status of the Leader of HM Official Opposition is so confused - he should either say, NO or YES to joining. Anyway, it is quite clear as far as Parliament/Royal Household/No. 10 are concerned, i.e. Corbyn has joined - I have to admit this is a first regarding appointments to the Privy Council, so let's hope Wiki catches up sooner rather than later on the correct form. Much appreciated for getting back to me. Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Its back in again, added by Mabelina. I have removed one addition already so I won't take it out but there are clear multiple objections to it at the moment, what is wrong with waiting for clear confirmation, it is not important enough to row about so much, just wait till its clear. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Govindaharihari - yes I did amend Corbyn's correct style since no doubt we all would like Wiki to be correct... I have provided empirical evidence via www.gov.uk & www.parliament.uk - any further media reports will be second-hand info, so what else could Wiki require by way of proof? M Mabelina (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • He is still not included on the officialprivey weblistsite and there are multiple other reliable externals already posted above in this section for you that bring doubts to his inclusion and his own comments regarding the title - what is your hurry User:Mabelina to stuff this in the article against consensus of a fair bit of what is apparently well meant editing? Its a meaningless shoe-in post no one cares about anyways. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi there - I'm back! In fact I've just returned from a City lawyers' function where among other topics of conversation Jeremy Corbyn cropped up. You may be intrigued to know that unanimous consensus was quickly formed without need of explanation as to how The Leader of HM Opposition (thereby prospective PM) does not know whether or not he is a Privy Counsellor (given that his appointment has been formally announced). I mention this because my dealings with Wikipedians on this matter for some unknown reason seem to get ever more tortuous, so it was pleasing to have such unstinting clarity from legal professionals, who all agree that Corbyn is now a PC. The Wiki consensus procedure seems to invite minority groups to cast their competing interests into the public domain and demand rights and recognition. But because your right is my duty, and vice versa, this inflation in minority rights has been matched by an inflation in the burden of duty imposed on others eg. in this case, presenting the correct form: the Govt Website has formally announced his appointment as Privy Counsellor, so when primed with such authoritative information why constantly revert the article back to a lessened state? M Mabelina (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Mabelina:, @AusLondonder:, @Govindaharihari: From what I can see, Corbyn is not yet a PC. Mabelina, you linked to a page on the parliament site that describes him as Rt Hon, however I suspect that all that has been done there is someone has taken out the words "Harriet Harman" and replace them with "Jeremy Corbyn" without bothering to think about the title. On Corbyn's parliamentary biog ([3]) he is not showing as a Rt Hon (see [4] for a biog of someone who is). This section of the website is pretty up to date (for example they are already showing the SNP down to 55 seats following Thomson's resignation of the whip). Given no news outlets have announced he has actually joined and the PC Office website is still not showing him as a counsellor, over 2 weeks after the appointment was announced on the Number 10 website, there does seem more evidence to suggest he is not, though I completely accept it's ambiguous. For now, I suggest the PC appointment is removed from his page, though the matter may become moot fairly soon as I suspect he'll do the necessary at some point. Frinton100 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
          • This really won't do - but I don't want to get blacked as a result. "Suspecting" something and this that & all the other simply does not get over the www.gov.uk explicit announcement of his appointment as PC. Clearly the powers of Wiki are against getting this one straight - zut alors! M Mabelina (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
            • There is clear ambiguity on this issue, with conflicting information in different official sources. We should definitely err on the side of caution and only include the title when there is certainty. --ℕ ℱ 01:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure a random collection of City lawyers are any more expert on this issue than anyone else, nor is an account of supposed discussions with a bunch of them going to decide the issue. The point is that it does not appear to be confirmed in most places of record where one would expect to see it confirmed; nor does Corbyn, based on his last comments on the matter, seem to think he is formally a member yet, hence we're better off not asserting he is. Also, as I've pointed out I think twice now across these discussions, the Downing St announcement does not, as worded, explicitly say he is a member or contradict anything else we can see. It says he has been approved for membership, which is technically a different point. So we can't rely on that to prove the point. N-HH talk/edits 09:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two potential sources which would settle the matter for definite. Either a news outlet reporting that he has joined (not merely that he will join), or the Privy Council Office website showing that he is a member. Until then, there is just too much ambiguity to know one way or the other. Frinton100 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest press with regard to Corbyn's PC saga can be seen at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-snubs-privy-council-meeting-due-to-private-engagements-a3085316.html which follows earlier media reports stating that others have previously joined the Privy Council by Orders-in-Council to be confirmed in person at a later practicable date - the confusion is mired, perhaps deliberately, since no indication has been given that he will attend in person or as to whether he values its role (which is equivalent to other councils of heads of nation states, albeit non-regally styled). M Mabelina (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting on the BBC report today to hear JC himself use the phrase "I've been appointed". Though given the Privy Council Office still doesn't show him as a member I think it's best we hold tight for now. BTW, the PC Office do now show Angus Robertson as a PC member, and they didn't before the meeting on Thursday at which he did the necessary deeds, so their site is clearly pretty up to date.Frinton100 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not Rt Hon yet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11925338/Queens-advisers-strip-Jeremy-Corbyn-of-Right-Honourable-title-after-Privy-Council-snub.html

So please dont add that

Phd8511 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but here's a less partisan article. It seems he cannot become a member of the Privy Council until he attends a meeting of that body and is inducted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-right-honourable-title-removed-after-missing-meeting-with-the-queen-a6690351.html

This is Paul (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Later news - apparently Corbyn's office implies he will attend a PC meeting - in fact, he requires one before any vote re Syria. Collect (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This story was utter rubbish and shows the continued level of bias of the telegraph, which has lost all pretence of serious journalism. The story carefully implies he has been stripped of a titled that he never had nor never claimed. The fact that he seems to be treated completely differently to David Cameron in exactly the same circumstances, a fact which is glossed over in the articles, shows that this is just party propaganda which has no place in a serious biography. We can report that he has joined this esteemed organisation when and if it is confirmed, all this speculation in the meantime is pointless, and only exists to denegrate. --ℕ ℱ 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have questioned the reliability of The Telegraph as a source, at least for matters regarding Corbyn and the Labour Party. It has shown itself to disregard basic standards of journalism and honesty. It appears as little more than the in-house newsletter of the Conservative Party, and a poor one at that. How can the World Socialist Web Site considered an unreliable source for biogs, but the Torygraph suitable? AusLondonder (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

These developments must come as a significant shock to User:Mabelina who infamously stated the following

• "Corbyn has officially joined full stop"
• "I trust you believe me when I say that Corbyn has been appointed a PC & that therefore he is a Privy Councillor. I appreciate that sometimes bully-boy tactics work"
• "I've just amended Corbyn's article to reflect his status as a Privy Counsellor, although I am quite aware that this could get reverted - however, it is actually the correct state of affairs"
• "surely Wiki readers would like to be disabused of the notion, that a) Corbyn is not yet a PC"
• "he has been appointed a PC by www.gov.uk"
• "I can assure you that The Royal Household made appropriate discreet enquiries prior to HMG's announcing his appointment"
• "Anyway, it is quite clear as far as Parliament/Royal Household/No. 10 are concerned, i.e. Corbyn has joined"
• "Hi there - I'm back! In fact I've just returned from a City lawyers' function where among other topics of conversation Jeremy Corbyn cropped up. You may be intrigued to know that unanimous consensus was quickly formed without need of explanation as to how The Leader of HM Opposition (thereby prospective PM) does not know whether or not he is a Privy Counsellor (given that his appointment has been formally announced)"
• "This really won't do - but I don't want to get blacked as a result. "Suspecting" something and this that & all the other simply does not get over the www.gov.uk explicit announcement of his appointment as PC"

Embarrassingly, despite all this bluster and talk of "city lawyers" the facts have been proven today. The Privy Council has made clear Corbyn is not currently a member. Expert on the Privy Council David Rogers clarified the matter. Mr Rogers said:" Number 10 had confused a recommendation to appoint with an actual appointment" and added that Downing Street "probably hadn't cleared their statements with the Privy Council Office". He said the confusion was caused by a statement on the Cabinet Office's website (relied on so consistently by User:Mabelina) that said Mr Corbyn had been appointed to the Council. This saga shows the importance of WP:RS along with consultative editing and refraining from pov pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you might have been annoyed by the extent of previous discussion, but aside from point scoring, does this extended comment really contribute to improving the article @AusLondonder:?--ℕ ℱ 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect your point User:Nonsenseferret. I have always respected your contributions at this page. The point I am making, if taken, does seek to improve the article, by reminding all of the absolute importance of informed, community-driven and consultative encyclopaedia building. A large amount of time and effort was wasted on this pointless issue. I feel the approach taken by Mabelina, in trying to force this inaccuracy on the page by pretentious "city lawyer" posturing was very unhelpful, and example of how not to work with others. This continued to the extent of near pretence of membership of the royal court "I can assure you that The Royal Household made appropriate discreet enquiries". This conduct was disdainful. It implied Mabelina's supposed out-of-wiki knowledge or connections should railroad this page into inserting crap. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I also want to add I have nothing personally against Mabelina. I don't want to sound too much as if I'm gloating. I'm sure they have lots to contribute to the project. I just feel this did not need to go on for so long, nor did Mabelia have to adopt an approach that got peoples backs up. Hopefully Mabelia can contribute in a positive manner, including at this article, in the future. AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree about the tone of the previous debate. It all seemed a little bit "I'm right, so get used to it", rather than considering all of the evidence available, not just the bits that suited one particular side or the other. For my part, I was never sure one way or the other, but was just erring on the side of caution given the ambiguity of the information. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, the Privy Council Office website does appear to be updated on a regular basis (Angus Robertson was not listed as a member on Wednesday last week, on Thursday he attended the PC meeting and was sworn in, by Friday he was added to the list of counsellors), so I feel this should really be the only source we need to go by. Frinton100 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion in the section immediately above has helped me clarify my thinking: I propose that the Telegraph be deemed incompatible with WP:RS on this BLP, for showing a deep animus and misrepresenting some key issues in its reporting on Corbyn. Remember that WP:RS does not instruct us to identify a particular source as reliable in general but rather to consider the context in which it might be used. So we don't need to discuss whether the Telegraph should or shouldn't be used elsewhere. Instead the question is whether it is proper to use it here -- and I think the answer is no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should not take a view on this. We should use factual sources where they give facts, and avoid commentary pieces. Admittedly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two but we should try to do so. Refusing to use the Telegraph at all for this article is only a short step from refusing to use the Guardian – or even, some would argue, the supposedly liberal BBC – for articles about Cameron, for example. I don't think we should go down that road - but of course we should continue to be careful in the sources we do use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it the same as the BBC. The BBC is legally required to be impartial. Indeed, some studies have suggested the BBC is biased to the right. Regarding the Guardian, it is a quality publication. Opinions in the paper lean to the left, but reporting is generally fair. The Guardian has not often been accused of printing blatant lies (Queen snub story) or weird tabloid photoshop jobs. Libel actions have been more prominent against The Telegraph (George Galloway has successfully sued, as has a Palestinian charity mentioned on this talkpage previously). The Guardian is owned by an independent trust, The Telegraph is owned by conservative billionaire tax-exiles. Would the Morning Star be regarded as a reliable source on a Tory biography? No. Why should an equally politically partisan publication be regarded as one then? Because it prints on broadsheet? I do not believe the Telegraph is a suitable source for this bio, nor increasingly for any. AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this a matter for WP:RSN? Any decision to exclude one of the main UK media sources from a high-profile article like this one should in my view be taken by the widest range of experienced editors possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I question why The Telegraph is still viewed as inherently more reliable than the Morning Star or the Daily Mirror. Why do we start from that presumptuous position? Is it purely the printing format? If the Sunday Sport was printed in broadsheet form would it be reliable? What happens if newspapers cease to exist in printed format? Why would The Telegraph by more reliable than the Sport then? AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the question at WP:RSN#The Telegraph and WP:BLP at Jeremy Corbyn. Another possibility would be to start a discussion at WP:BLPN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia policy for BLPs still applies, which means reporting in a dispassionate manner (and avoiding newspapers' hyperbolic terminology like "snub"), requiring multiple sources for contentious claims, not assuming that just because something happens to be reported in a newspaper actually means it's significant and attributing anything which represents an opinion. Which means "context" applies on a line-by-line basis, not through new page-level rules to block sources otherwise considered reliable in their fact-checking and notable for their commentary.

Love or loathe the emphasis that the Telegraph is putting on the uninteresting (and not worthy of WP inclusion unless it develops into something bigger) Privy Council saga, I'm not persuaded by arguments that news coverage like this[5] however slanted, actually suggests the Telegraph has stopped checking facts (c.f. the Sun and the Mail reporting allegations against Corbyn discredited back in 1987 as fact, despite the Mail clearly knowing about the retraction). Similarly the story about Corbyn's "Right Honourable" title being removed from the Privy Council website doesn't warrant reporting here because (at this stage) it's utterly trivial, not because the Telegraph's screenshots cannot be believed.

All newspapers, everywhere, have a bias and tend to editorialise the facts they report, and most have wealthy owners. Unlike the Morning Star, the bias in the Telegraph's editorial line is also based primarily around selling newspapers to a particular demographic rather than being "anchored in the political programme of the Communist Party of Britain", which might answer the question about why the latter source usually isn't considered representative of mainstream criticism or particularly reliable for reporting of facts. WP:RSN remains the most appropriate venue for arguing for more general presumption against the Telegraph and/or reversal of the general presumption against the Morning Star or Mirror. Dtellett (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Still awaiting an answer to my question above about the alleged "lie" printed in that piece by The Telegraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- these responses are reasonable and thoughtful. Perhaps that's grounds for reconsidering my proposal and thinking about usage of the Telegraph on a case-by-case basis. In fact, maybe we should take that sort of approach on other sources people have worried about -- such as, let's say, the Mirror. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope - and note that the actual article is what we use as a source - not the headline. Headlines are not generally written by reporters but by "headline writers." The Guardian even has used inapt and inaccurate headlines, by the way. Collect (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

More important – and more in line with actual WP policies as stated – than declaring a particular source always OK/"reliable" or always forbidden/"unreliable" is actually looking at the context in each case. The distinction between verifiable and significant fact and commentary/interpretation (whether favourable or hostile) is what matters as much as anything. Broadsheets can be as lazy, polemical, flippant or trivial as any other papers, even in proper "news" pieces, and tabloids can do proper factual reporting occasionally. I agree that too many BLPs are ruined and left utterly tedious by people scraping up huge amounts of negative (or positive) comment and insinuation from a range of broadsheets, chucking it on the page and rejecting any attempt to remove it because "they're all RS", but there's no need (or policy basis) to go the other way and bar particular sources altogether. Apply caution and common sense to every piece of material that's being used as a source, wherever it's from. N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Having established that folks have some familiarity with the policies and practices of the site, are we any further forward with the thinking on us displaying a factoid about the drinking practices of a prominent politician, sourced from a tabloid? Other than George W. Bush, where it was justifiably a significant part of the subject's "story", I cannot recall a situation like this arising previously. I think it is better if we omit this entirely, or else stick to a well-sourced version of it. --John (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you found a "good source" that is as accurate as The Mirror interview? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to revisit the topic of the section above, rather than debate the Telegraph per se, there are two issues here. Is the discrete topic at issue significant and worth mentioning? If so, what sources will we use to address it? No this isn't Dubya territory and it is, as noted, hardly the biggest thing about Corbyn, but this is only one line in a brief "personal life" subsection. As the current content notes, the media has frequently described him, as part of its obsession with his supposed frugality and asceticism, as teetotal. That content sat here as gospel and "well sourced" for a while. His own words appear to qualify that, and that detail was added subsequently. User:John has also failed to address, despite requests to that effect, what he means by the "well-sourced version". Does he mean leaving it as was, with what appears to be an inaccuracy and without Corbyn's own words? Or does he mean removing it altogther on the basis that none of it is well sourced? The former is not acceptable, surely, nor is there consensus or policy to back that. The second option is more open to debate, albeit more on the basis of overall significance or lack of it, but hardly worth all this. I'd argue a brief mention of the fact that he has been widely so described and the (perfectly well-sourced, as discussed) statement that appears to contradict the description is reasonable. As before, the obsession with this one sentence is a little weird. And on that point, I think I'm finally done. Thanks for kicking this all off. N-HH talk/edits 20:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ps: I don't think "familiarity with the policies and practices of this site" was a problem for many "folks" here apart from, regardless of their loud assertions of their own rectitude, one rather egregious exception, which is what led to this ridiculous debate in the first place (yes, I know I then contributed to it, but). Motes and eyes, as they say. N-HH talk/edits 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think thanks must go to Nomo, for any kick off? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• since issue with Telegraph is now resolved, I would suggest picking up the alcohol issue in the section above where it was raised, and I have added a further source. If there is no objection I will archive this section as comments are now either resolved or redundant --ℕ ℱ 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved? Still awaiting an answer to my question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In which section was your question? If it was a previous section, then I would suggest discussing it in multiple sections doesn't add much --ℕ ℱ 21:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked the question of AusLondonder, and indirectly of you, at "Privy Council comments" above. By all means answer up there if you prefer. The Telegraph has been discussed in at least four of the threads above, so it's not totally clear that everything about it has been "resolved". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so no objection to continuing discussion at the appropriate section, and archiving this one which was on the subject of a blanket ban on the use of the Telegraph. For which I believe the consensus was nay, and therefore further discussion in this section being off-topic. --ℕ ℱ 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1. No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

very odd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

how jews (Corbyn and Eisen) are being denounced as "anti-semits" or even worse hereover. Is this Monthy Pythons flying cirucs here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.98.124 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as clarification, what Corbyn has said is that "...while his immediate family is Christian, he has a “Jewish element” in his background.." I don't see how that makes him Jewish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that nakes him an "anti-semite" either! Where are these denouncements exactly? Certainly not in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for idle chit chat, it is not a forum for debate, there are plenty of other websites for that. These Talk poages are here to discuss changes to content, to ensure that wikipedia articles are consitent with policy and indeed with each other. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of allegations about anti-Semitism, if we don't have it already this from The Guardian is worth including somewhere. It concerns an article that appeared in the Telegraph for which that newspaper received a bollocking from the Independent Press Standards Organisation. This is Paul (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is worth including anywhere, either here or at Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn (an article I wasn't aware of until today). The Telegraph article was shown to be inaccurate, in that Corbyn wasn't being accused of anti-semitism. I'm not sure why any false allegations about him are of encyclopedic value, unless they gain widespread public traction in other sources. (If this discussion continues, can I suggest it would be better to move it to a new thread at the foot of the page?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and only mention the article because of the above discussion. Besides, now The Telegraph have had their wrists slapped no doubt that will be the end of the matter. It's difficult to see where this would fit in anyway. As for Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, that seems to largely repeat what is covered in this article so I'm not sure why we have it. This is Paul (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Privy Council comments

so its clear now - the number 10 website posted he was a member and he isn't until he attends. The telegraph is now posting all sorts of biased comments which we shouldn't bother repeating here. This is the addition the truth is that Corbyn will not be appointed until he turns up... end of. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

End of what exactly? Can you show us why you consider these to be "all sorts of biased comments"? The article in The Daily Telegraph looks like it contains facts. If it's contentious, why not say "it was reported by The Telegraph that ... "? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is contentious and printed in a vague insinuatory way in a clearly biased source, then it has no place in a BLP. --ℕ ℱ 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, they do admit that's not really The Queen. But are you saying the words added to the article were biased? Of that they can't be used as the whole article was biased? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has been stripped of a title, that is a lie. To imply that they have been is the whole point of a very biased article. To see that it has no place in a BLP doesn't require much common sense. --ℕ ℱ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact JC is accused in the headline of "snubbing" the Queen suggests a blatantly biased article. If it were a snub, then Cameron also snubbed the Queen for 3 months in 2005-06. Perhaps if we look hard enough on the Telegraph website we will find a similar article about his disrespect to the sovereign? Frinton100 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You can but try, I guess. But failure to find won't actually prove anything, will it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The headline (quite calm by the standards of many newspapers), which we'd never report here, is actually "Privy Council snub". As I mentioned, the Queen pictured below it is not a real Queen.

Indeed, but the use of the word "snub" does reek of bias. However, there are some useful bits of information in the article, but I would argue that it should really inform our decision making on whether or not to add Privy Council membership to the article, rather than lead to any additions (mainly because there's nothing really to add - "Parliament got his title wrong on their website" does not really add much).Frinton100 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 Good to see you not making puerile "jokes" for a change. However, the fact you deny bias in that article is almost a joke in itself. The article claimed Corbyn was "stripped" of his title by the Council, apparently on the wishes of the Queen. That, as others pointed out, was an actual lie. It is false to claim Corbyn "snubbed" the Queen. Stop focusing on the weird photoshop job. That's not the issue. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Snub" reeks of the kind of four-letter word, that a broadsheet sub-editor loves to use as a punchy tabloid-style finish to a headline for an article, that might otherwise look like as electrifying as a dead haddock, and which is guaranteed to get tongues a-wagging at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (Did some one say puerile joke...hang on just a minute..)

Are you claiming the lie was the "stripping", or that the wishes of the Queen were involved? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether this is or isn't the question you are referring to, but I'll have a go at answering it. To strip someone of a title they have been given is how you would describe situations such as (a) stripping a knighthood from someone that was formally knighted and then did something dreadful later in life to merit the removal of that honour. The word is not correctly used when in the situation when no honour has ever been awarded (situation b) where there is merely a textual correction to a website that wrongly shows that it was so awarded. So the lie I referred to was the use of language to convey the impression that we are in a situation (a) in Corbyn's case, when clearly it is situation (b) --ℕ ℱ 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The text is this: "The Queen’s advisers told Parliament to strip Jeremy Corbyn of his “Right Honourable” status after Number 10 wrongly implied the Labour leader had joined the Privy Council, The Daily Telegraph can disclose." How do we know what the Queen's advisers said? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I must be missing the point of your inquiry - are you suggesting some change or improvement to the article? Certainly there is no direct quote in the article so knowing what exact wording may have been used is impossible. What is clear, is that to strip anyone of a title in this case is a logical impossibility because no title had ever been awarded. To imply that it had been, as the Telegraph are trying to do, is clearly entirely misleading. --ℕ ℱ 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My question is very simple. You said this was statement was "a lie". How do you know that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made my position very clear, to claim that a logical impossibility was done is self-evidently untrue. Is there some improvement to the article you are suggesting, or is this just idle chitchat? --ℕ ℱ 17:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It may have been a lie. But we have no evidence of what was said. So your accusation, especially against the newspaper, is simply unfounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

the telegraph is starting to embarrass itself and we need to look at not using it as a reliable source for living people Govindaharihari (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're suggesting that The Daily Telegraph can be used as a reliable source only for non-living people, yes? That's going to be quite a trawl through the articles. I think I'll leave the discussion at this point thanks, especially after AusLondoner's warm wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is that, though the Telegraph article no doubt does contain factual elements, you have to read the words very carefully to find them, given that the article as a whole (and the headline, and the picture) are clearly slanted in such a way as to present the story in the most unfavourable way possible to Corbyn. It seems to me that someone responsible for the No.10 website jumped the gun in putting Rt. Hon. before he'd been formally admitted, and - given the controversy over whether he is/isn't/should/shouldn't be Rt.Hon. - someone else then suggested that the website mention should (in our terms) be "reverted". It doesn't sound to me as though that's a "snub", more like a cock-up. It may well happen regularly, and the only reason it's been noticed this time is that - unusually if not unprecedentedly - some people think that Corbyn won't or shouldn't become a PC member. He's said he will, in due course. It's probably something of a non-story being whipped up into a story by anti-Corbyn media, and I agree that we should just let it rest until we can report something conclusive. (By the way, I certainly don't find Martin's jokes puerile - I usually find them completely incomprehensible.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Tabloids and BLP sources

Per this revert, could User:N-HH or someone else explain how this article gets a free pass to violate WP:BLPSOURCES? It seems less than likely, but I am all ears. --John (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Much less biased that the Torygraph, apparently. Cheers, John. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) .. and with fewer lies or mock Queens.

Yes, a left wing newspaper reporting an interview with a left wing politician, very safe to re-report Govindaharihari (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The contention that this edit violates WP:BLPSOURCES is not self-evidently true. It would depend on whether you think that his liking for reading and writing falls within the definition of "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Is that a claim that you would like to challenge? --ℕ ℱ 19:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like self-serving dreck. I don't think it belongs in the article. I don't think the Daily Mirror is a reliable source for BLPs and I think it lies square in the middle of the sort of source BLPSOURCES was written to protect our project and the living subjects of our articles against. If there are no objections, and no better sources can be found I will take it out again. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We should avoid the use of tabloids wherever possible in BLPs. If this article were to be assessed for quality then the reviewers there would want any redtop sources taken out. By way of a cautionary tale, I took Johann Lamont through GAN a couple of years ago and used several sources from the Daily Record, which seemed fine to me, but they were later removed by somebody who regarded them as unreliable. This is Paul (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BLPSOURCES is there to protect living persons from defamatory content - you are however on a, no doubt noble and well intentioned, mission to remove all tabloid sourcing. Lets not pretend that carries any broad consensus however, despite the vehemence with which you hold that belief. --ℕ ℱ 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought the Daily Mirror was the best source for a claim of literacy, even for a politician. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't the best source for anything, which is why we don't use such sources on BLPs. Fairly simple, I think. --John (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Most things worth doing aren't simple. Like the question of whether the Telegraph is perhaps worse in this context... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A very important point, well made, when we consider sourcing "contentious material" --ℕ ℱ 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess The Telegraph would never claim that he reads and writes. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC) That's like The Economist claiming he also "does sums"?

The higher standard established by WP:BLP exists solely to protect people from the possibility of harm. Since there is no risk of harm from these things, BLP does not apply here; generally speaking, BLP does not apply to positive coverage, even if you feel that it is "self-serving dreck." Additionally, remember that it's totally fine to use a WP:BIASed source; the question is whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not whether they have strong opinions. (Now, the question of whether covering this is giving it WP:DUE weight is another issue, but there are no BLP issues here.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the original question, please see comments here, in particular the point that a straight interview with Corbyn with a political editor, whether in the Mirror or any other newspaper, is a good source for what he said in that interview, and probably provides better material in this context than lazily recycled, and probably barely fact-checked, descriptions found in "10 things you never knew about Corbyn" pieces that happen to have appeared in generally loftier places. And BLPSOURCES, read properly, does not anyway ordain a blanket ban on using tabloid newspapers, just tabloid journalism, which is a different point. And even if anyone thought it did, wiping the reference while leaving the material it supported is hardly likely to be an improvement to the page, or to be evidence for the fact that those who have removed this thought that hard about what they were doing. FWIW, I'd happily have lost the second bit of info sourced from it later by another editor, ie that he "likes reading and writing", but the point about drinking is important, relatively speaking, as it contradicts the lazy and pithy – but supposedly impeccably sourced – epithet "teetotal" which otherwise sits there unchallenged. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Mirror is acceptable in this context. There is no doubt that some purists misunderstand the reluctance to use tabloid sources as a blanket ban, in all contexts, without exception. I firmly believe this is an exception. I also wonder how some editors judge The Telegraph as a non-tabloid and the Mirror a tabloid? The Telegraph certainly looks like one, printing blatant politically partisan lies and weird photoshop jobs. How can someone argue with a straight face that the Telegraph is reliable when it is printing overt lies and disinformation yet simultaneously argue the Mirror is unreliable when directly quoting Corbyn in a one-one-way interview? By the way, I notice Martinevans is back already with his painful The Sun-style wisecracks. His self-imposed exile from the warm reception to his "jokes" certainly didn't last long AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) editconflict

I was aiming higher. But we shouldn't get too hung up over "weird photoshop jobs", should we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't give up. I'm sure you'll get there one day. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A perfectly well-balanced publication, I'll have you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if such a rigid reading was correct, it's odd that people citing BLP rules seem quite happy for that to lead to what is probably a misleading description of a BLP subject remaining on the page unqualified – simply because it has appeared in a couple of broadsheet sources – while insisting that the subject's own words, which appear to correct the inaccuracy, must be excised. Unless, that is, the claim is that the Mirror's political editor is making the quote up, Corbyn is lying or it's all true but somehow too disparaging of him. N-HH talk/edits 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about what User: N-HH considers to be a broadsheet-sourced "misleading description" on the page? If it was Edward Lucas' claim that Corbyn had a "desire to appease Russia by sacrificing Ukraine" then I've just removed it (clearly neither a particularly representative nor evidence-supported criticism) though it was rather heavily qualified as being a journalist's opinion. Or was it just his drinking habits?

Unrelated point analogous to the Mirror issue: the Morning Star is usually not considered a reliable source for the BLP, but is clearly appropriate to use as a source for relevant and appropriate quotations from Corbyn's columns, and probably preferable to include if and when the digested contents of such columns are reproduced in mainstream media commentary Dtellett (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• So the consensus among those commenting here is that it is ok on a BLP to balance out weak material from a good but hostile source, with contrary material from a weak source? That it is so vital to "cover" the matter of Corbyn's supposed near-teetotalism and (seriously) his propensity to read and write, that we must take this short-cut through WP:BLPSOURCES? --John (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that trying to put words into people's mouths is going to be a popular contribution here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No indeed. It certainly wasn't my intention. Do please explain where I am going wrong in my understanding of your position. My own preference would be to remove the dubious material pending better sourcing. This is also what our policy suggests. What do you think of that proposal? --John (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is that the material isn't dubious, therefore it's not necessary to be so rigid about "high-quality sources". This view is entirely consistent with WP:BLPSOURCES. I wouldn't be caught dead reading a tabloid on the Tube, and as a general matter I wouldn't encourage using one here -- but I don't see a need to be so rigid about it in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So you think on an article about a "left-wing" politician, there is no problem with Wikipedia using an assertion from a "right-wing" broadsheet, so long as we also have a rebuttal from a "left-wing" tabloid. The matter of Corbyn's drinking habits; if it's so very important, what does the BBC say about it? The Guardian? I'd be happy to include it with better sourcing, but the current state doesn't fit my understanding of BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There you go again. I said nothing of the sort. Not only that, I have made it clear that I think there are problems in using the "right-wing" broadsheet in question on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. So you agree this material should be removed pending better sourcing? --John (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As others have said, BLPSOURCES states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the information about his drinking habits has not been challenged so far and is unlikely to be challenged in the future, so this does not apply. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My argument on this point doesn't have much to do with bias or political leaning. As far as I recall, both the Guardian and the BBC are among those respectable sources that have lazily, it would seem, recycled the description "teetotal" (@Dtellett, that is what I was referring to). We have an interview with the Mirror with the subject of this BLP – which by definition is only going to appear in the Mirror – contradicting that, in his own words. No one seems to agree with your "understanding" that BLPSOURCES bans tabloid papers as sources. Even if it did, are you seriously saying that BLP policy is better served by this article retaining, without contradiction, the initial inaccuracy until either the Guardian or BBC cites and repeats the Mirror quote or until Corbyn says exactly the same thing again, but this time in an interview with either of them? As asked above, are you suggesting that Corbyn is lying, or that the Mirror made this quote up, or that the words, rather than probably clarifying a point, are so derogatory they simply must be removed? This really shouldn't be that difficult, and it's bizarre that a huge thread has developed about an aspect of Corbyn that is relatively trivial all told. N-HH talk/edits 17:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be pretty clear here I'd say. BLPSOURCES clearly dictates a higher standard only for the sourcing of contentious material. If it was an outright ban on using tabloids it would say that. --ℕ ℱ 17:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think N-HH make a fair point. (But I'm not convinced the non-drinking is necessarily trivial). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to some degree. Consider this challenged, and consider that I am marking it as contentious. This material is potentially far from trivial. Pending better sourcing, I'm afraid this cannot remain as it stands. A couple of folks on an individual talk page cannot trump long-standing policy. As I've said, we could carry the well-sourced version of this story, or we could remove it. --John (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But the "well-sourced" version uses the word "teetotal"? And some would say that was a lie? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would push you towards total removal, which is also my preferred option. --John (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest taking a breather from all the bluster. Propose an edit; see if it gains consensus. You started this section by complaining about an edit that reverted your deletion of the Mirror and associated text. It's quite clear that that edit doesn't have consensus. So perhaps if you suggest a different edit we might get somewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of folks on an individual talk page cannot trump long-standing policy. As I've said, we could carry the well-sourced version of this story, or we could remove it. --John (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it seems that the point has to be re-iterated, your interpretation of this policy is only your own, and not supported by consensus anywhere on wikipedia. --ℕ ℱ 20:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. One person on a talk page cannot declare that their interpretation of what constitutes policy trumps everyone else's. There is, as pointed out several times by several people, no explicit bar on tabloid newspapers in BLPSOURCES. Policy on reliable sources, by contrast, explicitly calls for sources to be assessed in context in each case. The idea that a lazily recycled media label is "well-sourced" and to be preferred as a description of an otherwise inocuous fact over Corbyn's own words, just because it appears in a few broadsheets or on the BBC website is just bizarre. As is spending all this time arguing the toss over it and threatening people on their talk pages. N-HH talk/edits 20:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:John, I am stunned by your arrogance on this. In fact, I cannot believe you would suggest the words of Corbyn are unreliable and should not even be included in an article about...Corbyn himself. What gives you the right to "mark" the source as "controversial"? In that case I "mark" The Telegraph as unsuitable for all BLPs in all cases without exception. AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Shocked and stunned, eh? I favour removing the questionable material unless better sources can be found, per BLPSOURCES. Any good encyclopedic reason to keep it? Quibbling over how much he drinks and stating he likes to read and write? Using tabloids? On a high-profile politician's page? Never mind user talk pages, this has the potential to go to ArbCom. --John (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless we get an embarrassing U-turn, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a politically-motivated personal attack on a living person.... AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify exactly what your position is, because it does seem to waver a bit. Are you maintaining (a) that the Daily Mirror can never be used in a BLP. or (b) the Daily Mirror can be sometimes used for non contentious material, albeit it is not a preferred source, and that this particular edit is so contentious that it cannot be used in this particular situation. --ℕ ℱ 22:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• User:John. Please be my guest and waste the time of ArbCom over whether a politicians words in a direct interview are reliable and suitable for their own bio. I feel you are being unreasonable, stubborn and inflexible over this, sadly. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New source

In that sense, Corbyn can consider himself Hardie’s rightful heir. In other senses, too: Corbyn’s vegetarianism and the near-teetotalism would meet the earlier leader’s strong approval, and he would certainly recognise his successor’s victimisation by the media, in particular the Daily Mail.

- per Ian Jack in the Guardian - is this sufficient to demonstrate that both he isn't quite teetotal, and that it is a topic that is discussed in non-tabloid sources, due to the character comparisons with Keir Hardie. --ℕ ℱ 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me (although that bit about the Daily Mail is obviously going off down the wrong road)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That helps to assuage the attempted "no tabloids!" injunction, but it might be thought equally dubious by some, not unreasonably, being a passing mention in a column rather than a clear exposition in a news piece. Plus of course it's as likely that Jack and/or the piece's editor phrased it based on the Mirror interview and/or even this page as it is that this is genuinely independent confirmation as such. Overall, I still think citing Corbyn's own words from the Mirror is the clearest option here. N-HH talk/edits 08:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No new pic yet?

I'm surprised this is proving so difficult. Surely there's someone watching this page who lives in London and can figure out where/when to show up with a camera. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

well, he's in perth today, so that might not help. --ℕ ℱ 22:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I today have removed reference to Corbyn from Blood libel per diff - it may be an article that editors will wish to keep an eye on. --ℕ ℱ 12:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the Blood libel page to my watch list. I suggest that others do the same. -- The Anome (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been attempts to re-add this content and link to this article. --ℕ ℱ 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Fisher (Labour activist)

Andrew Fisher, Corbyn's head of policy, has been in the press recently. Some press sources are representing this as a struggle between wings of the party. I'm not sure if this belongs in the Corbyn article, but it certainly belongs somewhere -- a leader's senior aide being suspended from the party at the request of other party members is probably unprecedented. -- Impsswoon (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn has supported him, so possibly that fact itself is notable in the Corbyn article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34755345 Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It has no significance is this persons biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

recentism, notnews, and undue --ℕ ℱ 14:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Include it in Andrew Fisher's biography, of course, but not here. This is Paul (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(That is assuming there is more to be said about Fisher than just this incident) This is Paul (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fisher is head of policy for the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore involved in shaping policy for what may potentially be the next British goverment. That's a pretty significant position to be in. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree at the moment. But, if the NEC report criticises Corbyn, that would almost certainly be a sufficiently notable matter for inclusion. The Fisher article, by the way, needs to be expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

on the contrary, apart from being in the news for this one incident he is not an elected politician and not notable. --ℕ ℱ 14:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

yes if you want, go for it, but he has minimal notability and deletion is a bigger option to expansion Govindaharihari (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Which "one incident" - his appointment, or his suspension? That seems to me to be two incidents. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The former London mayor Ken Livingstone dismissed the complaint against Mr Fisher as a complete nonsense and accused Blairite MPs of trying to undermine Mr Corbyn.

"The MPs who have taken this up and the people driving this aren't really terribly concerned with this one individual, they are trying to undermine the leader who has just been elected and that's completely unacceptable," he told the BBC.

"If you are one of those New Labour MPs who thinks that the Blair government was the apex of human civilisation you have got to come to terms with the fact that the party has moved on."

Even at the risk of the Labour Party losing the next election, Tony and his mates are determined to undermine the present Leader. So, what at first might seem like a reasonably minor issue, now involves the future direction of the British Labour Party. That said, how might Wikipedia report this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.225.2 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015

Gandhian

AusLondonder do you have a source for Corbyn being a Gandhian? I know that he has said he cannot think of any situation where he would commit troops to war, but I am not sure that makes him a Gandhian (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A video exists about this. I'll look it up. Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award for his "consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and non‐violence" I think this in itself could count AusLondonder (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen that he won that award in particular for his "opposition to neo-colonial wars and nuclear weapons" but I don't think this is the same as complete opposition to all forms of violence and and also his economic ideas do not seem to match up with Gandhism, which argues against trying to export goods. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The award is given by the Gandhi Foundation which adds credibility. The category page says "Gandhians are followers of the philosophy of Mohandas K. Gandhi". I imagine all those in the cat do not follow every statement of Gandhi to the letter. India does itself possess nuclear weapons. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Its not enough to call him a Gandhian or even a follower of Gandhi. An award given does not define someone's ideology. What matters is what sources say about his statements ----Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gandhi foundation source says he is a a Gandhian. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats a claim, anything which says he agreed? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He did accept the award and has spoken highly and proudly of it. I'll do some searches. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can gather from Gandhism, the main features are complete non-violence, celibacy, self-sufficiency (i.e. no imports/exports), fasting and wearing homespun cloth. Corbyn does not fit many of those (possibly you could extend the wearing homespun cloth to his rejection of expensive suits), although you could certainly argue that he has been influenced by them. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So did the Gandhi Foundation make a mistake? It awarded Corbyn for "consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhi values of social justice and non‐violence" AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It made him an award, that is referenced and I'm sure he was grateful, Social Justice and non-violence are not the exclusive preserver of Gandhi so it is not a sufficient source to call him a Gandhian ----Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there is a difference between upholding two values (which many ideologies believe in) which happen to be Gandhian values and being a Gandhian. Until we have a better source saying that Corbyn is a Gandhian then I would leave it out Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• removed as per WP:BLPCAT he is not a self declared Gandhian. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I respect all the above editors very much. But I am surprised that the Gandhi Foundation would not be an acceptable source for whether someone is a Gandhian. Regarding WP:BLPCAT, I cannot see how that applies in this instance. Could you clarify what part applies here? Is it "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources"? AusLondonder (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers that we use what the person self-categorizes as . If the "Gnarph Party" honoured him as a "Great Gnarphist" that would not still make him one. Collect (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He may not accept an award from such a party. He accepted this award. He made a speech accepting the award. AusLondonder (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a few issues here. Accepting an award isn't the same thing as self-identifying as a follower, and we'd need an RS clearly stating the latter. Also, the sourcing required to show that mention of an award is due (worth mentioning) should really be independent of the organization (or at least it should be obvious that there would be such independent sourcing). This aspect is quite important as there are a lot of grandiose sounding yet non-notable vanity awards out there which regularly appear in wiki bios.--ℕ ℱ 00:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Right Honourable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is Corbyn styled "The Right Honourable"? According to the page on this particular style, it is used by peers, Privy Counsellors and a number of officeholders (including current and former Cabinet members) but Corbyn does not fall in any of those categories. Why then the style? JorisEnter (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It has now been removed. Some editors are adding it by mistake, others adding to make a WP:POINT AusLondonder (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed earlier today by this edit? User:M.starnberg seems to be sweeping across all kinds of bio articles changing long-standing post-nominals and styles, without any kind of discussion. Perhaps he could tell us why. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User seems to be jumping the gun a bit - but the (happy?) event seems only a few hours away Corbyn to be appointed Wednesday --ℕ ℱ 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How very exciting. But will he kneel?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC) ...at least he won't have to sing (?)

(Edit conflict)Gosh, the fuss that has been about this petty issue, on Wiki, and, even more ridiculously, off Wiki has been absolutely ludicrous. How can anyone be so obsessed with wanting someone to join an undemocratic, unelected, unaccountable, secretive club? We've had a number of title and style obsessed editors recently. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The bigger surprise is that nobody has added a detailed analysis of the exact mathematical measurement of the angle of declination of Corbyn's loaf during Sunday's wreathage --ℕ ℱ 23:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. Martinevans123. Please resist the urge to make a joke about Cuba. Or Che Guevara. Or the colour red. Etc, etc. :) AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph says nay, HM is minded to be accommodating. --ℕ ℱ 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mr Corbyn is expected to kiss the Queen’s hand as part of the ceremony ... He might hop from stool to stool, before brushing his lips across her hand... " Sounds quite romantic, not to say gymnastic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

... especially if he has his fingers crossed behind his back at the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: Corbyn has now been officially sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. [6] So that should settle the matter. -- The Anome (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh go on, give it a few more reverts, just for old times' sake. --ℕ ℱ 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Alas no confirmation of kneeling, hand-kissing or even stool-hopping. Gutted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Great Britain in 2015, a land where people kneel before and kiss the hand of the Queen. A modern land where us Brits are still conditioned to tug our forelocks. God Save The Queen - she aint no human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.182 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Arise, Sir Rotten of Holloway." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... just for Ausie. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Postcript: shock revelation just in. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)