Talk:Jeremy Corbyn 2015 Labour Party leadership campaign

Proposed renaming

Setting aside the separate issue of whether this article should be deleted or merged, I propose renaming it to Jeremy Corbyn campaign for leadership of the Labour Party (UK), 2015. I know it's long and cumbersome, but the existing title simply does not make it clear what leadership he is campaigning for. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The precedent for campaign articles, set by presidential campaigns in the US, do not specify which presidencies those candidates are campaigning for. For example, Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 is applied, as opposed to the more specific "Hillary Clinton campaign for presidency of the United States, 2016". I understand the point you raise, but I would argue that "leadership campaign, 2015" is sufficient and follows the aforementioned precedent. Willwal (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Presidential campaigns in the US - campaigns to become the head of state of a leading global nation - are really not comparable with campaigns to become the leader of a minority political party (not head of state) in a much smaller country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course, I'm not comparing the actual office of President with that of Labour Party leader – I'm merely suggesting that the line of logic that you've taken to reach the conclusion that "leadership campaign" is too vague, is flawed. If people using Wikipedia, who do not know who Jeremy Corbyn is, find the article title too vague and non-specific, why would the same problem not apply to a user with little knowledge of George Pataki or Jim Webb? Willwal (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If the campaign is titled Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader, as the infobox says, that is what this article should be called. It seems to be the name of his Facebook page - [1] Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader is the name of the campaign does not mean it should be the name of the article. The current title follows the precedent set by other articles of campaigns run by politicians hoping to lead/represent their party in a general election – namely the many U.S. presidential campaign articles. For example, it's Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, not Hillary for America.

Please explain how the difference between a U.S. presidential campaign and a UK party leadership campaign requires only the Wikipedia article of the latter to be exactly named after the name of the campaign itself? Willwal (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular article title - but I think the current one is inadequate and imperfect, so I'm suggesting options. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And, as the creator of the article, I appreciate any scrutiny given by other users. However you haven't answered my question above: how does the campaign to lead/represent a party at a general election differ so much between the U.S. and UK that the corresponding Wikipedia articles have to be named in completely different ways (as opposed to: John Doe presidential campaign, 2016 and John Doe leadership campaign, 2015)? Willwal (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said two days ago, in my view, the campaigns are not comparable. But this is not a dialogue between two of us - as the creator of the article you have no more say in the matter than anyone else - and I'd like to hear other editors' views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you decided to turn this into a personal attack – I've never said that I have more say, just because I'm the creator. As it happens, you wanted to make a point about the stance I held as creator.

Returning to the substance of this discussion, just because campaigns for the presidency and a party leadership have some distinctions does not explain why the title of their corresponding articles must be differing as well. For the third time of asking, please could you elaborate on the logic behind this? Willwal (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There was absolutely no personal attack intended in anything I've written. You offered to move the article back to a sandbox - which I welcomed - and now, as you have every right to do, you've changed your mind. That's fine, no problem. As I've said, the campaigns are not comparable with each other - so there is no reason why the titles should be comparable. . Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The article currently uses the template {{Infobox U.S. federal election campaign}}, which is obviously wrong. Which of these should it use instead? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. {{Infobox political party leadership election campaign}} can be used instead. Willwal (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

This version of the opening paragraph gives no indication of who Corbyn is (no link to his page), no indication of what organisation he is seeking to lead, or even what country his campaign is in. The article should not assume that readers will know those basic facts. I'll change it back to a clearer version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Would a compromise of the following suffice?
The 2015 leadership campaign of Jeremy Corbyn, the British Member of Parliament for Islington North, was announced in an article for the Islington Tribune on June 3, 2015. Corbyn pledged to stand on a "clear anti-austerity platform" and because he wanted to "give Labour Party members a voice" in the debate.
Willwal (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't say what organisation he's campaigning to lead, or link to the main article on the campaign. I don't see a problem with my wording. The opening sentence does not need to contain the article title - WP:BEGIN says "if the article title is merely descriptive... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

'The British establishment is frozen with fear about the prospect of his victory.'

Give the standard operating smear tactics used (by the British powers-that-be) against any left-winger likely to win power/popular support, might not the above quote form part of a section on the Black Art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.168 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a comment by Diane Abbott - [2] - of no encyclopedic merit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, on its own, the direct quote of Diane Abbott has little encyclopedic merit. And yet, set against the media smear tactics use during the Labour Leadership campaign, is not this issue of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.248.138 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for "the media smear tactics". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all in your Sun today (10 Sep 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.144 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we here can safely ignore what's written in the Sun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If only the negative impact of The Sun could be "safely ignored"? While crude, the views of this rag do have a certain impact on public opinion. Sadly, this 'newspaper' also represents an anti-left mind-set within the British establishment. An establishment that is frozen with fear about the prospect of a Corbyn victory tomorrow.

And yet, as for today, is it the start of a new Ice Age for the British establishment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.145.2 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/19/greenstein
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/cwu-backs-jeremy-corbyn-for-labour-leader.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150718194504/http://stopwar.org.uk/news/lindsey-german-why-stop-the-war-is-supporting-jeremy-corbyn-s-campaign-to-be-labour-leader to http://stopwar.org.uk/news/lindsey-german-why-stop-the-war-is-supporting-jeremy-corbyn-s-campaign-to-be-labour-leader

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/corbyn_for_arts_culture
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613002150/http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/leadership/detail/jeremy-corbyn to http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/leadership/detail/jeremy-corbyn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)