Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 1

Possible Copyvio?
I was just having a go at sourcing the BBC news article mentioning the Tamil Tigers on this page when I realised that much of the content duplicates Jeremy Corbyn's entry on the politics.co.uk website http://www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/labour/corbyn-jeremy-$451749.htm her]. Can someone identify which is a copy of which. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Raed Salah and 9-11 Jewish conspiracy theory
Twice reference to Salah's conspiracy theory in an Arabic newspaper has been removed. First on the grounds it is WP:SYNTH, second on the ground that this article followed Corbyn's comments. Please read WP:NOTSYNTH and look again at the dates. This material is directly pertinent to Corbyn's judgement or incomplete knowledge of Salah at the time of his comments in April 2012. Pls see comment above under Eisen.Cpsoper (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The dates seem to indicate the article was written in October 2011 yet Corbyn met him in June or July 2011. WP:NOTSYNTH is an essay not a policy. There is no consensus to include. AusLondonder (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The video referred to in the Guardian is in April 2012. Salah's article is in October 2011. Shall we put out to rfc?Cpsoper (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is when the video was posted to YouTube as far as I can see. I thought the meeting took place in June or July 2011, see article here AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn's Early Day Motions
I inserted the following info about Corbyn's Early Day Motions

Corbyn has backed thousands of Early Day Motions in Parliament, some of which were described by the Daily Mirror as bizarre.

but it was removed for being "UNDUE IMHO". Can someone suggest a way of phrasing this that might be more appropriate? Alternatively should it go in the section on the Leadership Election as e.g. Corbyn was criticised by several papers for his Early Day Motions etc.? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "bizarre" part is opinion and would have to be cited as opinion and ascribed as opinion to the person holding the opinion. IMHO, the whole concept of labelling motions as "bizarre" is UNDUE in this BLP.  Feel free to seek a consensus in fvour of that claim, however. Collect (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mention "several papers:" do you have any other sources that cover this topic? Brustopher (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * References:
 * In terms of how to describe the more unusual motions, I'm struggling to think of a word to describe them which is impartial here.

Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of these sources seem unreliable/borderline, also some of them don't seem to criticise him on it. Most don't mention that he's supported a lot of early day motions. I'd recommend keeping this out of the article. Brustopher (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree "bizarre" is UNDUE in this BLP and does seem to me to ignore the whole nature and context of the EDM which may be intentionally humorous. Corbyn is far from alone in supporting thousands of Early Day Motions over the years. It is perhaps worthy of note is that he has generally been more active in the area of EDM's than many other MPs. Either in proposing, seconding or supporting them, is there any value in providing a link to the EDM's by Member part of the UK Parliament website so people can see for themselves?Mighty Antar (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Any claim about "number supported" would have to come from an independent reliable source - it is WP:OR for Wikipedia editors to make that claim on their own. Collect (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't a claim, it's an observation based on fact. You can see exactly how many any MP has supported each year very easily on the UK parliament website . The pertinent issue is whether or not it's important enough to be merit including on this BLP. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. Wikipedia editors are stuck - we only use what has been stated in reliable secondary sources - we do not "observe" anything.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. The relevant policy states, Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.  Surely the parliament website is an acceptable primary source for the bare fact of how many motions an MP has voted on?  GoldenRing (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Farage
It's now two against one in the edit war on including this. As suggested in the edit summary, here's a talk page section. In my view, it's trivial, occasional, passing commentary that isn't needed here, certainly not with its own main heading. As I've said in respect of other stuff, an encyclopedia biography is not meant to be a detailed exposition of the minutiae of every piece of daily commentary on one aspect or sub-aspect of the person's life, even if the leadership election is currently a genuinely big issue and a live news event. So that's three against one.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, this stuff does not belong here. AusLondonder (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if there's a consensus that it doesn't belong then it should stay out, but please discuss on the talk page *before* deleting things so that a consensus can be built up first Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would advocate rewriting and incorporating the material comparing him to Farage in the main "reception" section as part of side that advocates for his electoral appeal. JJARichardson (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do people think about rewriting the last sentence in the lead: Corbyn's supporters argue that many of the policies in his socialist manifesto have a mainstream appeal across political divides. The way Corbyn’s authenticity and ability to connect with previously politically disinterested people has expanded grassroots support for the Labour Party has created comparisons with Nigel Farage, who was also viewed as having radical policies and being outside of the “Westminster elite”.
 * Personally, I wouldn't outright object to a very brief mention as part of any main-body text about his anti-establishment appeal, given that it seems to have been remarked on by a couple of politicians and commentators, but it's hardly a significant enough point for the lead (or, as noted, for its own dedicated subsection). Plus it should not suggest or imply that they have much else in common, since nobody is saying that.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What about adding this to the Labour leadership section: Corbyn's supporters argue that many of the policies in his socialist manifesto have a mainstream appeal across political divides. The way Corbyn’s authenticity and ability to connect with previously politically disinterested people has expanded grassroots support for the Labour Party has created comparisons with Nigel Farage, who was also viewed as having radical policies and being outside of the “Westminster elite”, although they come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo request
I have requested a photo / photos for this article, particularly one of Corbyn at a demonstration if possible. Posting to Commons would be helpful AusLondonder (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Since a well shot and placed photo of the active MP - maybe set against a really big demonstration, march or some other mass public event - would help to reflect the values of Jeremy Corbyn, why has the request not been fully addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.183.4 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The aim of this article should not be o reflect the values of Jeremy Corby per [WP: Soapbox] 81.101.109.163 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The current photo just seems poor quality - there must be something better in the public domain?Jack Nunn 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknunn (talk • contribs)

Early career?
Doesn't say what he did when he left school. Did he go to university? Otherwise what was his employment? Valetude (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Early Life section is confused and some statements are wrong. Jeremy Corbyn was still a NUPE official when he was elected as MP for North Islington. If he was a Tailor and Garment Workers Union official, it was earlier than his NUPE employment. Islington North was not his local constituency until he moved there (I think after election but possibly after selection) and he was a Haringey Councillor (and therefore a legal resident of the Borough of Haringey) until election for Islington North. He was never an Islington Labour Party elected Officer (such as Secretary) but held several elected Labour Party offices in the next-door Borough of Haringey, such as Vice-Chair (Organiser) and Chair of Hornsey & Wood Green CLP (previously Hornsey CLP). I still have my copies of the AGM Minutes and Accounts to bear this out. Jeremy Corbyn's early (pre-1983) reputation in the Labour Party was as a very effective election organiser for Labour candidates of all wings of the Labour Party. It might be appropriate to point out in the article that Jeremy Corbyn was selected as candidate for Islington North after the deselection of the previous MP, Michael O'Halloran, who stood in 1983 as "Independent Labour" (coming fourth). A source for the last statement is "The Times Guide to the House of Commons 1983". Alcibiedes (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * O'Halloran left the Labour Party for the SDP in 1981 and was not selected to contest his seat at the 1983 general election and stood as Independent Labour. This information belongs elsewhere and is already detailed in other articles. Nothing to do with Corbyn really and only of local interest. Philip Cross (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gilligan article
Firstly, the article comes from a newspaper which has urged its readers to vote Corbyn to "destroy" the Labour Party. The article is written by an employee of Boris Johnson. It is irrelevant what the American government claims about Interpal. Corbyn is a British politician - can spurious claims made by every government in the world be covered in this article? The UK Charity Commission and British courts have rejected a link between Hamas and Interpal. Such allegations from a foreign government should be at the Interpal article if anywhere, not here. AusLondonder (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The politics of the Telegraph and Gilligan does not mean they routinely invent stories. It is a reputable newspaper and Gilligan has a good track record, so the article can count as a reliable source. The USA is an ally of the UK and the government of a proportion of the readers of this article, so it is not any "foreign" government. We do not know their claims about Interpal are "spurious", given the UK Charity Commission and the courts will not have had direct access to US intelligence.


 * Incidentally, according to the present issue of Private Eye, the Telegraph has had a negative response from its readers for its attempt to influence the Labour leadership election. Philip Cross (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your position that the article is a WP:RS. Regardless of whether the UK is a US ally, it is indisputably a foreign government. The Interpal claims have been rejected. They may be notable enough for the Interpal article, but are irrelevant for the Corbyn article and a smear by association. AusLondonder (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Whilst the Telegraph may in general be a reliable source they have shown that on the matter of Corbyn and the leadership election they have a bias and are willing to print material for the effect it may have on the process. I think this means we should be particularly careful about using them as a source here, as this is a WP:BLP, and try to find other sources instead. There isn't exactly a lack of coverage of Corbyn at the moment and if something is worth mentioning here then some other reliable source is bound to cover it. JMiall  ₰  17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reasons that bring the Telegraph source into question. Andrew Gilligan and The Telegraph is a long established investigative journalist in a national newspaper. Negative statements published in the press will get a journalist quickly sued in the UK if they didn't have hard proof. I do agree that being guilty by association can be removed, unless more reliable sources discuss it.--JudgeJason (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interpal is a legal charity. The High Court found the Sunday Express guilty of libel for alleging links between Hamas and Interpal. The Charity Commission has rejected the US allegations. There is no reason to included these politically-motivated "allegations" Including these claims at this stage violates WP:BLP and possibly WP:VERIFY,. AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is well-recognized as a reliable source. We don't argue that the Guardian is non-RS when they print anti-Conservative stuff.  It seems unbalanced not to include this but to still include the material about the Channel 4 interview.  Wanting to exclude this seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd find the Guardian being so blatantly biased eg seeking to sabotage a Conservative leadership election or emailing readers to vote Conservative. Secondly, not everything a "well-recognised" reliable source prints needs to be included in a WP:BLP. Not everything about an organisation is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a WP:BLP of a supporter of an organisation. The allegations concern a charity - not Corbyn. This is guilt by association. Not to mention the fact the High Court has found it is libellous to link the charity and Hamas and the Charity Commission has dismissed the concerns. AusLondonder (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't included in this BLP. Can I remind you that the text you are reverting is According to Andrew Gilligan of the The Daily Telegraph, Corbyn has received funding from the British charity Interpal and supports Raed Salah. Iran has been subjected to sanctions due to their nuclear program, in a talk titled The Case for Iran, Corbyn stated he wanted all the sanctions immediately lifted?  What's all this stuff about Hamas?  The source itself might well discuss such things - but that's not what its being used to support.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It also needs addressing that that's a weird conjugation of sentences - what does Interpal and Salah have to do with Iran and their weapons programme? I'm sure there is a connection, but it needs explaining. Stroller (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paragraph you reverted seems a bit smeary. "According to Andrew Gilligan of the The Daily Telegraph" is irrelevant - either he did it, or he didn't. If it's a fact then who said it can be in the cite. I don't know anything about this charity, but if there's debate about where it receives its funding, then that should be on the charity's own page. I wholly disagree with The Telegraph editorially, but have always thought them a good source here; nevertheless if the claim is controversial, all it needs it a second good citation to support it. Am open to "he's been accused of … by Andrew Gilligan of the The Daily Telegraph". Stroller (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how "According to Andrew Gilligan of The Daily Telegraph..." is different to "he's been accused of ... by Andrew Gilligan of The Daily Telegraph"? Why is one irrelevant or smeary, and the other okay?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the latter better recognises that it's an unsubstantiated allegation. If it wasn't an unsubstantiated allegation - i.e. if it had 2 or 3 sources - it wouldn't need any "according to", but could be stated plainly as a fact. As it is, balance requires the statement to follow with "but" and his response, assuming he's made one. Stroller (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not followed by two or three sources, so we say, "According to..." That makes it just as clear that this is in the opinion of one hack as your version, doesn't it?  GoldenRing (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The British right-wing press may be reliable on most matters of fact but certainly not on matters relating to personalities of the left. The Telegraph and the Mail are perhaps worst in this regard, often mixing editorial comment into news items, making it difficult to distinguished between what their sources support and the opinions of their editors. Gilligan is regarded by many as being a right-wing controversialist. So the Wiki Corbyn article should attempt to get better sources for the allegations (that JC supports Raed Salah). If the only evidence is the Palestine Solidarity Committee meeting at the House of Commons, that was attended by three MPs, one of them the impeccably centrist (in Labour Party terms) Yasmin Qureshi. There is no reason to assume that any of the three endorsed all (or any) of Salah's views - if these have been correctly represented. Does a transcript of the meeting exist? To find a politician's views on any issue, you have to look at what they wrote and said themselves, not what someone else said at a meeting they attended, or even organised - let alone what someone said on a different occasion. The material sourced to Gilligan and the Telegraph should be deleted unless better sourcing can be found. Alcibiedes (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why the allegations about a charity do not belong in this WP:BLP
AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources"
 * The Charity Commission has found allegations made by the US government to be false. The High Court has found the allegations linking Hamas and the charity to be libellous
 * Should every organisation he has ever supported, donated to or had contact with be included in this article?
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out"
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist
 * The Daily Telegraph has displayed astounding bias regarding Corbyn, running extreme negative stories on a daily basis. It has also urged its readers to falsely and maliciously register as supporters of the Labour Party to elect Corbyn to "destroy" the Labour Party. As such, it may not be a reliable source in this context.
 * Listing these "allegations" violate WP:UNDUE
 * The Telegraph is a broadly reliable source despite the recent deterioration of its reputation. Parotting Corbyn's misuse of the word "tabloid" to brush away controversy about his positions is not helpful to the debate. Mezigue (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "parotting" Corbyn, I'm "parotting" WP:BLP, which uses those exact words.... AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the above is irrelevant. The last version of this that you reverted merely states that, According to Andrew Gilligan of the The Daily Telegraph, Corbyn has received funding from the British charity Interpal and supports Raed Salah.  That's not gossip, that's a statement of fact from a reliable source.  It's not a smear by a biased hack at the Telegraph - the same fact is repeated in The Times and, in fact, you can find the donation http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations documented by the Electoral Commission.  What exactly is the problem here?  GoldenRing (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Making article semi-protected
Might I suggest making this article semi-protected so that only confirmed users can alter it? There have been a few (admittedly quite amusing) efforts to change the page, including changing Corbyn's date of birth, and claiming that he will "definitely win and become our Glorious Leader". Protecting the page would mean that we do not have to deal with these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As some of you may have noticed, the article is being changed extremely frequently, can I suggest again making this page semi-protected? As he has now been confirmed as leader, I think there will be a huge amount of scrutiny of this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Views on Russia and NATO
I've reverted your change removing the section on Russia and NATO. If you still think it should go, could you please explain here, first, how the stated text is "racist," advances the view that "Russia is untrustworthy," or mentions either Stalin or any fascist organization or government? GoldenRing (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain the argument this text is making. If: "the captive nations of the Soviet empire suffered a level of barbarity and oppression which only the most brutal episodes in European colonial history can match" is not including Stalin's crimes when referring to the Soviet empire and is not suggesting Russian rule during the Soviet era was any more barbaric or oppressive than that of the fascists, then what is the point of this text? Thymefromti (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming back to discuss. I don't think that quote is saying anything specific about Stalin, though I guess the Stalinist period comes under the heading of 'Soviet empire.'  And the quote doesn't make any comparison at all between the Soviet era and fascist regimes; it only compares to European colonial history.  That aside, looking at it again, it's true that that last sentence doesn't add much to the paragraph; I'll self-revert.  GoldenRing (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. GoldenRing (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Polytechnic
The subject studied at North London Polytechnic seems to have been "Union studies". Even these seen to have been short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.4.241 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your point is, are you suggesting the text should be changed? And if so, what to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:92.26.4.241, are you suggesting only Oxbridge graduates are suitable to lead such a diverse nation? What is the point you are making? AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015 Why is Corbyn described as leader of the SOVIET UNION on his Wipipedia page. Someone has been making mischief
Please change "Soviet Union" to Labour Party in your opening sentence. Someone has been making mischief.109.147.108.142 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

109.147.108.142 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done by other editor: Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry for lateish reply. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Activism image
Could someone this picture under his Activism section: http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6138749.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Jeremy-Corbyn-MP.jpg

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.110.33 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

❌ You do not hold the copyright to that image. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"he is sponsored by several Trade Unions"
Does not need capitalising: should be "sponsored by several trade unions". – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The page now being fully protected, I'm afraid you'll have to get an Admin to make that edit for you. May I suggest User:CambridgeBayWeather... Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

EU Policy
Could an admin add something to the article - Corbyn has now clarified his position on the EU and will definitely not campaign for Britain to leave, no matter what.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-campaign-for-uk-stay-in-eu

I suggest replacing the whole of the last sentence in the last paragraph of the Foreign Affairs section (the one starting However) with: However, in September 2015, Corbyn said that Labour will campaign for Britain to stay in the EU no matter the result of Cameron's renegotiation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "...regardless of the result.." is probably better than "...no matter the result..." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Yes I agree, I have put that in now Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to citation needed
The "citation needed" in Policies and views > Taxation and economy, 2nd paragraph, after "race to the bottom", could be answered with http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/05/jeremy-corbyn-backing-unite-labour-leadership-race if someone knows how to do that properly (I don't feel qualified). Login54321 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He also said it in this video at 21 minutes and 8 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbZjuJnkQ94&feature=youtu.be&t=21m08s 86.156.6.221 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ cheers. Not Youtube though. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dyab Abou Jahjah
This man has today been the subject of media and public interest. He has reportedly been engaged in Holocaust denial, fought for Hizbollah, whilst he disavowed 'delight' in the deaths of US and UK troops in an interview on LBC, he has claimed their deaths were a 'victory'. Corbyn criticised a banning order by the Home Secretary against him, and again it seems both noteworthy and proportionate to include him in this section, even if Corbyn was unable to recall his name in the interview.Cpsoper (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is all very well, but don't forget that this is meant to be a broad encylopedic biography of a UK politician and their history, not a blow-by-blow running commentary on every single aspect of every single alleged association controversy in this current leadership election. Even if WP was obliged to follow the UK media on this, the content relating to Corbyn's alleged associations would take up about 5% at most of the leadership "Responses .." section, not the 50% it does currently, with its own sub-section heading. As ever with bios, this ends up looking, whether that is the aim or not, as if it is about scoring political points and, ultimately, flinging mud via acres of text based on the spurious justification that "the media have reported it" rather than trying to create an objective overview of the subject. And no, neither the fact that his responses to the allegations are sometimes (albeit often inadequately) included nor the prospect of other content being expanded to equally unmanageable and unnecessary proportions deals with the problem.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Corbyn's contact with repellent individuals is more important than the extensive policies sections which he is unlikely to be able to implement. It is highly likely that Corbyn won't survive as Labour leader until 2020 if he is elected, let alone become PM. Corbyn's prospects are not exactly unverified speculation. The issue of his judgement is becoming the story, and may therefore be of permanent relevance. Philip Cross (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the relevance per se or the need to include some information given that, as you say, it has become a theme of the election coverage; but I am disputing, as a general and basic principle of writing an encyclopedia entry, the level of detail and that WP needs to go this far in covering every alleged instance and every comment by every person on this one specific aspect. WP is not a news summary service or a repository for day-to-day comment and assertion. Plus I was not contrasting the broader policies section and this one, but noting how much text this issue takes up from the point where we have a specific heading of "Responses", which is, as noted, about 50%. Regardless of what individual WP editors believe should be here or "may [or may not] be of permanent relevance", this has not even been the proportion of coverage in the media (a media which is of course, pretty uniformly hostile to him and which we should not be blindly following in any event).
 * And I would, as it happens, dispute that it is more important than the policies sections. His espousal of those policies, and the responses to his proposals, are part of the election campaign and the coverage of it, whether they end up being implemented or not. If he never becomes PM and they're not implemented, WP simply will end up not having a section on his premiership and its actual policies - that doesn't mean they never existed as proposals during this campaign or that they should be drowned out here. As I said, even the media aren't doing that entirely. Why should WP?  N-HH   talk / edits  11:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ps: I'm not going to get involved in any further convoluted debate about this, as it will no doubt be as pointless as most WP talk page debates, especially those about page-overwhelming criticism-type sections, which people seem to relish as an opportunity to stick as much random he-said/she-said muck into as they can when it comes to people they don't like (although I will admit that this one is at least not quite as bad as many I've seen in terms of size or tone). All I was suggesting is that the page at least pays some attention to the genuinely sensible advice included here as part of the NPOV policy.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The future alone will reveal just how significant this man's case and others like it have been to views of Corbyn's judgement and sympathies, but it was judged by many broadcast organisations in the UK significant enough to top the headlines on the 19th. I agree wiki is not news, but this has been noteworthy.Cpsoper (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Could other editors please stop adding Abou Jahjah to the beginning of this section. He is not mentioned in the sources from a week ago. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:Philip Cross, your personal observations about electability etc are not appropriate for a talkpage and could imply bias. I agree with User:N-HH on this. A BLP is not the place for endless back-and-forth media criticism nor a in-depth summary of news. I am astounded by the suggestion that his policy proposals should be of less importance than media sniping. I also believe some of the content being added violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:NPOV amongst other policies. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I say above, I am reflecting much media comment as much as personal opinion. NPOV is intended to apply to advocacy as much as criticism. It is quite true that much material critical of Corbyn is not suitable for inclusion because it is speculative (WP:CRYSTAL), while most of the articles from his admirers are actually very useful from the perspective of his detractors because they are so obviously flawed. Owen Jones recent article in The Guardian (now included in the article) is a case in point. Assuming Corbyn wins next month, the Conservatives response to his election and new found status is highly likely to include his association with the individuals mentioned in this article. I think it is safe to assume that this is more than mere news. Philip Cross (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I ask what is "so obviously flawed" about the Owen Jones article? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Earlier you accused of using this talk page as a forum, now you are inviting me to do that very thing! Basically Jones assumes it is a platform issue where one might accidentally shares a platform with people with opinions with which one does not agree with, whereas the actual issue is that Corbyn has explicitly defended people like Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer. Philip Cross (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jahjah himself is currently described on this page as "a fighter for Hezbollah who had questioned the existence of gas chambers during the Holocaust". Both things seem to be hinted at in some of the coverage, but I can find no explicit assertion let alone evidence, in the sources cited or elsewhere, of either. BLP considerations apply to him as well as to Corbyn. In any event, it's certainly not clear that he was attending the 2009 event on that basis or in that capacity - surely a more pertinent description would be that he was a Lebanese "activist" and/or "former [?] head of the Arab European League". More info on Jahjah, including the fact that he is now a columnist at the impeccably mainstream newspaper De Standaard, and the fact that a lot of the statements attributed to him are not quite as clear-cut as the out-of-context headlines would have you believe, can be found in this brief profile.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Try this Community Security Trust article which includes a passage from Jajhjah referring to "the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion" in Europe among other things. Philip Cross (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm aware of that piece of writing. I'm not interested in discussing Jahjah's views or comments, nor does that have much to do with the talk page business of improving the article (although I would simply say that your citing the above - admittedly pretty vile - words out of the broader context simply reinforces my brief side-point about selective quotation). My main point was about the description applied to him, in the article, in the context of the conference he attended. The article I pointed to gives a broader overview of his history and activity, which is why I pointed to it.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the original text claimed that Corbyn complained at the meeting about Jahjah being banned from the UK - yet the Jewish Chronicle piece cited for that explicitly says the incident when he was refused entry came after that meeting. If WP is going to have all this BLP-skirting stuff, it's going to need to be very precise about what is being claimed and do a bit better than half the "convincing" blog hit-pieces and "dossiers" currently floating around online. I've changed that bit too.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Allegations in the Print Media
A point of concern. This page should be as impartial and objective as possible, especially condsidering the current election campaign. Yet there is a disproportionately large amount of space dedicated to allegations of anti-semitism. These are allegations made by a small number of newspapers in relation to a distant contact with Paul Eisen at a time when Corbyn himself says he was completely unaware that the man was a holocaust denier. To devote a full seven paragraphs to these rather spurious allegations, whilst there is only one paragraph on Corbyn's views on taxation, makes it appear that Wikipedia is pandering to an agenda set by these few newspapers. (Garageland66 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Indeed, the page should be impartial, though the coverage itself puts his own claims into doubt, and ignoring that would be just as significant a disservice to impartiality. Spurious? Which claims are you referring to? Corbyn's own photo is listed in attendance at the 2013 Deir Yasin Remembered conference, despite not having contact with it for 'a number of years' - 2 as it turns out. Allegations about Eisen's Holocaust denial and 'increasing antisemitism' were made in 2007 in the Guardian by a representative of PSC, 6 years before Corbyn's dissociation from the meeting Eisen directs. Though I do doubt the balance of a paragraph uncritically quoting a close political ally, whilst rejecting an opinion piece by a critic. There's no harm in pruning the last two paragraphs which seem to add few facts and little value. The newspapers raising these allegations are the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Telegraph, Evening Standard, Jewish Chronicle, and many other outlets have also reported them, including the BBC and Sky, sometimes as their top item. In addition material of serious weight has been removed here - for example Corbyn's comments indicating how strongly he commended Salah, in the face of criticism, his defence of him, and the extreme nature of Salah's views before and months after this defence. One could add more. Cpsoper (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seven paragraphs out of as total article size now about 80k is not disproportionate, and Corbyn himself is not being accused of antisemitism in the article as you appear to suggest. The issue is Corbyn's judgement in associating with these people and his evasiveness in explaining himself. (Eisen says Corbyn's chequebook came out on a first meeting, which the MP merely says he does not recall rather than giving a categorical "no".) Eisen's anti-semitism has been written about in the MSM for a decade while it appears no one in Corbyn's circle has been bothered about this until it has become a story. Corbyn's contact with Eisen appears to have extended past the PSC breaking its connectiion with him - according to Eisen's account. The "small number of newspapers" who have covered this issue are mostly reliable sources in terms of Wikipedia policies. That they are entirely from the "capitalist press", and thus suspect, only cuts the ice with a minority of editors.


 * Incidentally, the passages on potential policies are purely speculative at present and could be accused of advocacy in favour of Corbyn. Philip Cross (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How could describing the proposed policies of a candidate in an election possibly be seen as advocacy? An article for someone running for office with no information about what they propose to do, would be very unhelpful and uninformative to readers. It also worth noting that half the proposed policies section is his policies being trashed. Brustopher (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue then is - is Wikipedia a proper place for campaign material and rhetoric? To the extent that campaign promises are generally "self-asserted" at best, one might note that we tend to try looking at what people other than the person are saying.  IMHO, the is conversely true of clearly political criticism flung at any living person - basically we are best off neither trying to list the saintly goals nor the satanic shortcomings of anyone.  Unfortunately all such BLPs get "silly seasoned" with  such material. Collect (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue seven paragraphs is disproportionate precisely *because* Corbyn himself isn't being accused of anti-semitism. Worth mentioning because it has been a major criticism of Corbyn covered by reliable sources, but seven paragraphs is rather a lot to effectively say that he hasn't effectively distanced himself from fellow activists generally regarded as anti-semites whilst pursuing his Palestinian causes. By contrast, we have three paragraphs devoted to 32 years of his political career. Dtellett (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is almost unique for a candidate for the Labour leadership to have defended the type of people Corbyn has done. That makes it notable. Philip Cross (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've acknowledged its notable enough to warrant a mention. But when there's more space devoted to Corbyn's connections with anti Semitism than Adolf Hitler's (in a much longer biography) you have an undue weight problem. As a minimum I'd remove the Yvette Cooper quote and aggressively trim the Owen Jones quote for brevity. Since Corbyn contests the timeline of the Sizer comments (and the WP:reliable sources seem to be using "reportedly" rather than stating it as fact) I'd also be tempted to trim that rather than including his denial for balance Dtellett (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly due to the fact that Hitler's connections with antisemitism are not disputed! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, exactly. Is the suggestion seriously that because the links with Corbyn are more tenuous, we should have more detail on them? Anyway, this is much the same point as I and others have made previously. Yes the issue is notable, but it's about proportionality - even the media aren't giving it the weight WP is - and that content on WP pages is not meant to be about rehashing the minutiae of back-and-forth political debates, but simply and concisely presenting broad biographical information.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A response from a mainstream Labour Party figure is legitimate as it distances the party from Corbyn's contentious associations rather than implicating it in them. Cooper's comments are the most substantial so far from another candidate, and she is probably the most senior politician in the party to have been quoted in the press on the issue. The comments from Ivan Lewis were deleted earlier, so without her comments there would be no response from the parliamentary Labour Party included here at all. That would be most odd.


 * On the issue of a comparison with the article on the Nazi leader, it is not a comparison of like with like. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on Nazi antisemitism and the Holocaust (rightly), so there are going to plenty of references elsewhere to Hitler's bigotry. Philip Cross (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think Corbyn's dubious associates needs a "response from the parliamentary Labour Party", least of all one consisting of a leadership rival [wisely] avoiding saying anything directly about Corbyn or the substance of the allegations. It's a biography of a man's entire political career, not review of recent reactions and news coverage of a particular issue. I don't see any reason why more commentary/reaction should be devoted to people Corbyn associated with than similarly incendiary (at the time) rows over allegedly anti-Semitic comments that the likes of Tam Dalyell, Paul Flynn actually made. The aim of Wikipedia biographies is to provide a balanced overview of the important factors in an individual's life irrespective of whether they are covered in more detail elsewhere, and so I think my point about anti-Semitism clearly not being a more significant aspect of Corbyn's political career than Hitler's still stands. Dtellett (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Sizer information
Why is the Sizer information you removed not relevant? There are multiple sources (Jewish Chronicle, Evening Standard), noting the event and Corbyn's response to it. I would have restored it but I saw a comment in an above talk section by User:Dtellett saying Corbyn's denied the reported chain of events (a denial I can't see to find in the sources I've searched through. Could someone link Corbyn's rebuttal? Brustopher (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Corbyn's office's denial is here, and it's certainly a risky one if it's false, since somebody presumably has a dated copy of the letter. The article which appears to be the origin of that story  purports to provide a quote from the letter which suggests otherwise, but it's in a newspaper unambiguously not considered a WP:reliable source. I don't think that detailing claim and counter claim here would add much, when the first sentence of the article already names Sizer is one of a few alleged anti Semites Corbyn was quizzed about his "connections" with. Dtellett (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Corbyn letter the Mail is quoting, and which the paper says came "at the time" of church action against Sizer in early 2015 over the 9/11 post, is clearly in fact, as Corbyn's denial states, a letter from three years previously that Corbyn wrote after an earlier controversy, as recorded in this 2012 piece on Sizer by the Jewish Chronicle (the wording is exactly the same; and Corbyn was not alone in defending Sizer at the time). It's too easy to make broad assertions and associations while assembling impressive-looking "evidence", with multiple links and sources, and yet get the details wrong, especially if one relies on the Mail or the Standard as a source. There's more than enough of this kind of thing all over the internet and Twitter at the moment without WP joining in.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems I've made a terrible mistake. I apologise. We should probably link to or cite Corbyn's response to the 7 questions directly in the article. Brustopher (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness this particular detail wasn't picked up by the fact checking in several mainstream newspapers... not even the Guardian with their "even if the Daily Mail says so" qualifier. Good find by N-HH, and typically rank bad journalism by the Mail Dtellett (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Mail, the Standard and the Guardian all elided the distinction. You expect this kind of thing from the echo chamber of bloggers and Twitterers, but as noted it just goes to show how careful you have to be even with sources that WP tends to accept (ie the Guardian, if not the Mail). The reality is of course that the media can play just as fast and loose in terms of simply rehashing what one newspaper says. Anyway, simultaneous to this discussion someone has been trimming back this section to a more proportionate level, which seems even more sensible now given that the media have pretty much dropped this issue and all its individual sub-threads after their brief frenzy of interest - which says a lot both about how much weight WP should give it in the overall picture and about how flimsy many of the accusations themselves were.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So the Mail does seem to have made the single error of attributing Corbyn's defence of Sizer's support for sites in which Holocaust denial is prominent in 2012 (something for which Sizer has been partial again subsequently) to supporting him after directly posting support for Israeli instigation of 9-11 3 years later. It is a significant error, but there is still a serious problem. In 2012 Corbyn said of Sizer, He "seems to have come under attack by certain individuals intent on discrediting the excellent work that Stephen does in highlighting the injustices of the Palestinian Israeli situation". Having commended SS so strongly then, does he still think that now? Does he still think Sizer is doing excellent work, apart from his indications of 9-11 denial? Abou Jajah, Salah and Sizer have all been guilty of denying atrocities against or attributing atrocities to the Jews, Corbyn has chosen to defend all three from public criticism and censure for antisemitism either before or after these statements. An unhappy coincidence, or a nasty pattern? These men are fusing Anti-Zionism and Jew hatred, not their detractors, and this fusion is not broken by Corbyn's perfunctory condemnations and vehement denials, even if Jews too are amongst their defenders. There ought still to be factual reference to his early commendation of and support for Sizer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.6 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But this isn't just about the Mail and other media getting something wrong (although that was good enough reason to exclude the specific claim relating to timing of course) – the wider issue is that the purpose of a WP page is not to note, or to analyse in minute detail, every single recorded allegation made against someone. If you want a place to discuss and record the views of Sizer, Salah etc, the nature of Corbyn's links to or passing association with them, and hence whether he is innocent or guilty of accomodating unpleasant people, there are plenty of forums out there for that. Far too much of WP and far too many contributors to it fall into the trap of thinking this is the place for that kind of thing and for constructing charge sheets and/or laundry lists of complaints against people they don't like. The page currently notes that his connections to people accused of anti-semitism have been queried, gives a couple of examples following the phrase "such as", and then gives a broad overview of the controversy. That's all an encyclopedic, proportionate bio needs to do.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Leadership bloat
The whole section is getting grossly disproportionate. As noted in the some of the individual topic threads above by me and others, this is mean to be a long-term encyclopedia bio, not a blow-by-blow account of Corbyn's leadership bid or a daily news round-up service of who said what about it in the media. There's far too much detail on both his policy proposals and the reaction to both them and his bid as a whole, with people constantly adding more and more quotes from newspaper op-eds and other individual politicians (and mostly, as it happens, it's negative reaction being highlighted, which adds another layer to the problem). Even allowing for the fact that it's Corbyn's candidacy that has made this race what it is to some extent, just compare the sections on this in the other candidates' pages: Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper. They, by contrast, could probably be expanded slightly – Cooper's didn't have one at all until I moved some stuff from here to it the other day – but they're much more in proportion. If it's not culled now, it will certainly have to be in a year or so's time, whether he wins or not. For a start, I'd suggest people stop adding anything to it; and if it genuinely needs updating with more text, please trim something else to compensate.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems like a lot in comparison with the other candidate's (I've actually just created a section on the Yvette Cooper page for proposed policies as there wasn't one previously!) but I think that is more because his policies have generated so much interest and have not really been discussed as serious proposals before whereas the other candidates proposals are all fairly uncontroversial and therefore do not need as much discussion - there isn't much further to go with e.g. Burnham wants to ban zero-hours contracts - these issues have already been discussed extensively at the last election and therefore there is not much coverage. I would argue that the amount of media coverage about Corbyn and his policies is worthy of note in itself. However, once the leadership contest has finished, I think the "responses to leadership bid" section should be moved into the "2015 Labour leadership election" article (Also the page on Burnham is probably much less extensive because it is semi-protected) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, N-HH. Sorry, I wrote my own extra section in this talk page which I guess is coming from the same viewpoint.  This whole article is getting crazy, as if it is written by the other three candidates, with one or two editors adding further criticisms day by day into the 'Proposed policies' section.Boscaswell (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is reference to views of Salah relevant to this section of the article?
Is reference to the views of Raed Salah in October 2011 relevant to the description of the subject in a video  in April 2012, cited in a critical article? Cpsoper (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of Salah's views are relevant at this BLP. This is an attempt at a smear by association and in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP amongst other policies. The article Salah wrote was after their meeting. The critical article you cite is an opinion article by a political opponent. I believe this matter is already covered in detail in the article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the meeting took place in June or July 2011 and the video was simply posted at a later date AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that illuminating contribution. The video was indeed posted in April 2012, and reported on immediately subsequent to the posting. Salah's longstanding views whether immediately prior or after his comments are of considerable relevance to Corbyn's judgement and sympathies on this issue. I welcome other views on the questions you have raised, though I don't share them. Salah's original article is posted here, for those not able to read Arabic MEMRI's translation is here.Cpsoper (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless reliable sources criticise Corbyn for associating with Salah because he holds these specfic views, they don't belong in the article. Brustopher (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems unreasonably stringent. The criticism is that Corbyn associates with, warmly commends and has defended Salah [references for which an editor has removed], Salah also holds extreme antisemitic views, of which 9-11 conspiracy theorising is one example, ergo, Corbyn's judgement and or sympathies are unsound. All three steps of logic and the conclusion are in the references per WP:SYNTH, the example merely illustrates. Why should this trouble editors concerned with accuracy and truth?Cpsoper (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's not up to us to find reasons to criticise Corbyn, it's up to the reliable sources. Unless the reliable sources say that it's bad Corbyn associats with Salah BECAUSE he is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist, it should not be in the article. The references you add to this article should be directly related to Corbyn, or else your just shoehorning in negative info about his buddies. To allow it would be carrying out original research. Worse still it would be original research for the purpose of making a living person look worse in their biography.Brustopher (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: summoned by bot. The whole section should be removed, or summarized by a single sentence, and if the section is kept the "Association with alleged anti-semites" should be renamed to something less leading and defamatory. It is painfully obvious that this all related to Corbyn's views regarding Zionism and has nothing to do with anti-semitism. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Summoned here by a bot. Is this still a live issue? I don't see any mention of Salah in the article as it stands. Does this now reflect consensus? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Split 'leadership candidacy' section into new article
There have been recent comments about the bloated nature of the 2015 Labour leadership candidacy section. I have created a new article, Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015, which follows the same format as articles for presidential candidates in the United States, though the amount of content has been reduced and the anti-Corbyn bias has been tempered to allow for a more impartial text.

I would argue that the aforementioned section on the Jeremy Corbyn article should be split, to create a new article, as it would reduce the excessive amount of detail.

A strong case can also be made that there is sufficient relevance for a new article: the media has been full of stories about Corbyn's campaign since its inception back in June 2015 - plus, the developments that have occurred during the leadership race, the controversies and interventions have been unparalleled in recent political history in the UK. Regardless of whether or not Corbyn is successful, the campaign he has run has gained considerable significance - arguably enough to be found in an online encyclopedia.

Willwal, (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would disagree - I think it would not be fair to have a separate article for Corbyn and not have one for the other candidates (and there is almost certainly not enough content for the others to have one). Looking elsewhere, Cameron, Blair and Miliband do not have their own article on their leadership race. I think it could be seen as bias for Wikipedia to create an article of this type and not do it for the others. However, I agree that all of the "responses" section is not necessary and should probably be moved into the 2015 leadership election article. I also commented earlier that the final paragraph of the "other" section should be removed as it does not actually say what his policy is, it is just criticism of it which is probably unfair. If no one has any objections then I will delete that paragraph later today. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with - it could be seen as biased to have one side of what is a four-person campaign hived off into a separate article.  Corbyn is only one of four candidates.  The story of the overall campaign - of all four candidates and how they have been portrayed in news sources - should in my view be included at Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 (and Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2015) rather than in the articles on the separate candidates.  No-one seems yet to have attempted that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now nominated for deletion - Articles for deletion/Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have suggested on the talk page for deletion – perhaps a suitable compromise would be to move the new article to a sandbox and wait for the result to be announced in September? I would also add that Corbyn's leadership campaign has received far more media attention and speculation than Cameron, Blair or Miliband did in 2005, 1994 and 2010, respectively. However I accept that Wikipedia should not be seen as impartial during a campaign. Willwal, (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Willwal. Wikipedia must be responsive to what is.  And what is is that the Jeremy Corbyn campaign has ignited the leadership election in ways that no-one could have believed.  He was considered to be a joke, a sideshow, and yet the Labour Party establishment are falling over themselves to prevent his election.  This is an astonishing phenomenon.   He packs halls to overflowing.  Still.  Make what you want of this, but it is happening.  I agree wholeheartedly with what Willwal states in his final para. above.  Furthermore, unless you believe that those who put their money up for this are all idiots, there is no question that he will win.  Just nosey on over to Betfair if you don't believe me.   The distance between the odds on him winning and any of the others is a gulf of biblical proportions.  So we have a situation which has not just lifted the lid on Labour Party politics, but blown it away.


 * We must be responsive to the reality of this. His campaign and his policies and the running scared reaction to them, they are all most definitely worthy of their own article.  Boscaswell (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that he will almost certainly win, but until he does, Wikipedia cannot be seen to be favouring one candidate over another by creating a page just for their candidacy. Would you all be happy with moving the "responses" section into the main leadership contest article in order to reduce the bloat in the Corbyn article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thoughts about the likelihood of him winning, or the merits or demerits of that happening, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with writing an encyclopedia.  I fully accept that the Corbyn candidacy is a big part of the overall campaign story, but it is not the whole story.  Much of the responses section in this article could be included in the overall article -  Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 - but it would need to be comprehensively rewritten.  The focus there should not be on one person's candidacy - it should take account of the statements of the other three candidates, and reactions to those statements, as well.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn's candidacy is the whole story here – but I think it can certainly be argued that his campaign has gained such notoriety in national and international press, with high profile interventions nearly every day in the face of improving opinion polling; so much so that his campaign should not be regarded as IRRELEVANT. For what it's worth, I have re-written and balanced the text that was initially on the Jeremy Corbyn article, so feel free to use the content on the leadership campaign article, should a merger take place. Willwal, (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * this is getting crazy, guys. Ansolutelypuremilk, you're suggesting moving the Responses section into the main leadership contest article.  But the majority of the Policies section is made up of responses!!!   The problem I think we have in the main wiki Corbyn article is that our article has fallen in line with the media.   Instead of the media giving any space to his policies, they are giving acres to criticism of them.  Are you happy that the Policies section is overwhelmingly criticisms?  I sincerely hope not!  I feel that is silly to start swapping sections around before this fundamental question is answered.    See the Talk section immediately above this.
 * having a page for the campaign of one candidate would not mean that we favour that candidate. If that one candidate is setting the election:competition on fire, and that is the case, like it or not, then we would be in error not to do so.
 * let me put this to you. 4 scientists in a big lab, open to the public, each have what they describe as a new discovery.  1 of them has virtually every member of the public who have crowded into the lab huddling up close to him to see what he has discovered.  The public had heard about What the other 3 scientists claimed to have discovered but had decided that they were in essence variations of minor changes to recent theories that had already been discarded.  Every day, more people squeeze into the lab to see the first scientist and hear about his discovery.  What is Wikipedia going to do?  Have editors all slaving away giving equal space to each scientist?  Or is it going to recognise what is and spend a lot of time and give a lot of space to the first scientist? If it wishes to give equal space to each scientist, does it give a lot of space in the article about the first scientist to his critics, including the other scientists, more space in total to his critics than to his discovery?   Or does it take the time to explain to readers of the encyclopedia just what it is that has captivated the public, which means taking the time to set out what the first scientist has come up with?    We have not done that.  As things stand, we have failed the public.Boscaswell (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could consider the possibility that you are not coming from a balanced, neutral position on this. I don't want to diminish your ardour, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not stir up the masses.  Corbyn has not done anything yet, except generate a lot of press coverage. See WP:CRYSTAL.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you, but your condescension is not called for. I think you are either misunderstanding the situation or misrepresenting it.  Corbyn has not done nothing, he has stirred up the masses, to coin a phrase, all by himself.  That is, without wiki doing it for him.   I agree with AusLondonder.  Boscaswell (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the criticism from him over the women-only carriages (it was not really necessary) and the discussion of his foreign policy (which didn't actually say what his foreign policy was). However, in terms of the balance of the rest of the policies section, pretty much all of the criticisms are merely stating facts rather than the general criticisms which are in the responses section. If there are any particular bits that you disagree with, then feel free to comment on the talk page.


 * I have also created a possible section for "Media Coverage" in the leadership election article, which is in my sandbox User:Absolutelypuremilk/sandbox. This is basically just the "responses" section from each candidate. Obviously much more can be added for the other three candidates but I think its a reasonable start in order to reduce the bloat on Corbyn's page Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support a separate article, including one for each candidate. As I have written at the very premature deletion nomination: Meets WP:GNG. Just because articles don't exist yet for other candidates is not a reason to delete this. Instead, articles should be created for other candidates. It is clear this material cannot fit in his BLP but is still worthy of Wikipedia. This election is the first one open to a broader electorate, similar to a US presidential primaries. Many articles such as this exist for US presidential campaigns, even for lesser known candidates such as Bill Richardson presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008, Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 and Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008. WP:GEOBIAS should be considered here as well. AusLondonder (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed. Boscaswell (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you (either Boscaswell or AusLondonder) explain why you think putting the responses section into the leadership article would not be a good idea? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Absolutelypuremilk, I have responded at the deletion nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To update, the article was kept at the deletion nom. So if anyone wants to contribute to that article please feel free. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015
Under the section "Environmental and animal affairs" (I believe that's what it is called, but it's along those lines), the first instance of Corbyn's last name is not capitalized, thus being "Jeremy corbyn". Please fix this to "Jeremy Corbyn".

Gonzno (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

resolved Govindaharihari (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Current marriage - check date!
In section Personal Life it states he married his present wife this year. However a chronological article in today's Daily Mail by Quentin Letts ends the sequence of years with 2013 as the year of this marriage, with his position as Labour Party Leader coming "two years later" (ie 2015). As a currently living leader who is likely to command more news coverage than previously, it would be welcome to put more precise dates (and possibly places too) to the marriages and divorces if such reliable information can be found.Cloptonson (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This source (more reliable than the Mail) also states 2013 - I've now corrected it. The previous source did not state a year.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 September 2015
There should probably be an image of him in the infobox

Goweegie2 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If only we could hunt down a decent one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll need consensus to determine which one to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please reopen the request when you have found a consensus on what image to add. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show me where there's a consensus that we should have no photograph. G-13114 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there clearly isn't a consensus for no image either, but you're missing the point slightly - the protection is intended as a stop-gap measure to stop people from edit warring and to start getting them to discuss things on the talk page. When we have consensus, we can remove the protection and add whatever image is decided upon. For the details, see the protection policy (and also The Wrong Version). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was, and is, that one or two editors objected to one or other photo... but almost no-one who contributed here preferred the idea of having no photo.  We now have the ludicrous position, according to some editors, that no photo can be put on the page until there is some sort of consensus as to which photo is used.  That seems unlikely to happen until some "official" photo is made available by Corbyn's office.. and we have no idea if anyone there sees this as a priority - probably not.  At the very least, admins controlling this page should have a modicum of common sense, and realise that - for all our readers, and for the great majority of interested editors - any free use image is indeed better than having no image at all.  Whatever our own internal guidance might say, the current position is both wholly unnecessary, and clearly an embarrassment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Privy Council revisited
The article claims Corbyn is now a member of the Privy Council, citing Downing Street. As of yet, this is not true as he makes clear in this BBC interview. Can an admin please revise this and remove "The Right Honourable" as the honorific prefix. (Or, remove the ridiculous admin-only editing provision) AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can an admin please address this issue please. AusLondonder (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree this should be dealt with. In particular, the following passage needs to be removed: "although he prevaricated over as to how he would handle the swearing in ceremony" -- "prevaricated" means "lied" and is clearly the wrong word.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The announcement of accession to the Privy Council was an official one and all official Parliamentary documents and websites since refer to him as The Right Honourable. The contention seems to be that he has not gone through the assumed initiation ceremony where it is presumed that he would have to kneel before the Queen. As there is no proof that such a ceremony exists and that there are plenty of other Privy Councillors past and present of republican or non-conformist nature who would have objected to such a ceremony if it existed, I'm surprised so many questions exist over his status in this respect, when the official line would seem to be clear that he is on the Council...

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this strange, "Maybe the ceremony doesn't exist at all" thing but this article by AFP says that his investiture is just a formality and he's already a member, so I'm going to put it back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Crown Copyright photo
At least a decent photo portrait but have we really free rights on this photo? Govindaharihari (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Govindaharihari - It is Crown copyright and there are plenty of other images used in Articles of people (inc biographies) that are subject to Crown Copyright. So if it was to be removed from this article on that basis then Mr David Cameron's photograph wouldn't be there. And thank you - it does look a lot better. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 09:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, its not a free image, Crown Copyright does NOT apply to images belonging to parties, only the government itself and its related ministries and its not always free in most cases either.-- Stemoc 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the fact that Mr. Corbyn is a member of Government? Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 10:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And it does not simply relate to ministers - please see the law before making summery judgements and false statements to compel an idea unjustly (see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1998) c 48.) Perhaps it is a good idea to brush up on your knowledge when it comes down to defining Crown Servants. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Mr Corbyn refers to himself as a "Crown Servant"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, MPs are not Crown servants. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well he's certainly not a Minister of the Crown, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Are you disputing the fact that Mr. Corbyn is a member of Government?" ah, NO, I'm disputing the fact that that image was taken WAY before he became Labour Leader and images of MP's are not necessarily under crown copyright...This is a "private" image taken by a professional photographer, never an official one.-- Stemoc 14:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll dispute that Corbyn is a member of the government. Even if he was, it wouldn't mean that any photo of him, even a recent one, was automatically subject to Crown copyright. This is all a bit bizarre. Nor do I know what the cited section of the Copyright etc Act is meant to be telling us about anything to do with this debate.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected
The ludicrous photo row is not sufficient reason to fully protect this page for an extended period of time. I've unprotected it, and removed the use of "prevaricated", as requested above. You'll note that I have not added a photo, as I want to make a clear separation between my admin role and my editorial role in this matter. -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  I'm curious to know your thoughts about what should happen if someone else tries unilaterally to add a photo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring can be dealt with by WP:3RR sanctions, where necessary. In the long run, someone will eventually come up with a good photo, and we will settle on that one. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked about. You yourself added the photo that I rejected on BLP grounds.  You might now have opened the door for someone else to re-add it.  If that's how it plays out, then unprotecting it would amount to a violation of WP:INVOLVED. What I'm getting at is that it should be made clear that no photo is to be added until there is consensus to do so.  Since there is a productive RfC happening just above, this is a reasonable notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I will not be re-adding that image, or any other, or removing any photo from the article, as I will now recuse myself from making photo-related edits to this article for a month. Please note that choosing to remove the photo entirely is not a neutral choice, either, as it is highly unusual for such a prominent politician not to have a photo, and any other editor using their admin powers on this article in this matter should also recuse themselves from this, for the same reason. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you consulted with the admin who implemented protection, to ask for their view about undoing their action? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, in much the same way they didn't discuss it with me first before they made their block. I'm not at all against full protection for this article to stop edit warring, it's the very long expiry time period that was the problem. Full protection for such a long period of time is massively disproportionate to the need: a few hours would have been sufficient. Again, this is a one-off action (for at least the next month): if other admins want to reinstate the full protection, I'm happy to defer to them.
 * By the way, I'd just like to point out that the protection over the silly photo row allowed the word "prevaricated" to remain in the article for a longer time that it would have otherwise, a much more serious BLP matter than the choice of the photo. -- The Anome (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day though, as pointed out, you're not entirely uninvolved in the whole photo back and forth whether through editing or the discussion thread above. (Not that I'm saying you're heavily involved through editing either.) Given the edits yesterday, the full protection wasn't unjustified. It would had been better if someone else were to be the one that lifted the protection if such action were to be taken. Before reverting an admin action, a brief consult with the original admin would had been ideal, or at the very least a note on their talk page to let them know that you reverted it and why. Now that it's been lifted, I wouldn't reinstate the protection, unless everyone here start getting silly again, which of course hopefully won't be the case. -- KTC (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed: it would be better for someone else to have lifted it, but I felt that the issues related to general editing policy overrode my degree of WP:INVOLVEDness, and as no other admin had stepped in or commented on the issue, I should make the protection change, and take the measures I've outlined above to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. I'll drop a courtesy note to the blocking admin to let them know. -- The Anome (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As the matter of unjustified protection had already been raised on that users talkpage, this would be entirely redundant. -- ℕ  ℱ  12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good move. The fact that no-one likes any of the photos is not reason to keep the page protected, though ending the edit war was a good reason to impose it.  Presumably no one will do anything foolish.  I wouldn't have lost too much sleep over "prevaricated" though, the word is in flux and generally is not taken to mean "lied" these days.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC).


 * "No-one likes any of the photos"?? Are you on the right Talk Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that at least somebody dislikes every one of the photos. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is hilarious. The reason none of the available photos are particularly flattering, particularly compared with carefully posed promotional shots used by some other MPs, is because the subject appears not to particularly care about that aspect of his public image. I'm not convinced it's Wikipedia's role to overcompensate for that by waiting for a photo that everyone agrees presents him in a more-flattering-than-usual light Dtellett (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very misleading comment - Corbyn has professional photos on his campaign website like any other MP - indeed there are many professional photos available on the commercial stock photos agencies - the reason they aren't here is because up until this week he hasn't been high profile enough for people to have taken photos they are willing to release under CC license and filter down to this level of the food chain. -- ℕ  ℱ  18:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You think Corbyn really cares about the way he looks and dresses generally? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "professional photos" on his campaign website include one picked for his own bio which other Wikipedia editors have argued should be removed on the basis it's "definitely one his political opponents would choose"... Dtellett (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:JJARichardson and User:NickCT

 * Note the following revert has been made so that a decent and fair outcome may be reached here if possible.

Hello User:NickCT and User:JJARichardson I don't mean to intrude but I have recently noticed a slightly "edgy" edit issue between the per of you. Perhaps either of you could explain your point of view on the issue at hand (I am completely new and impartial to it) so I might offer some sort of mediation in order to reach a productive outcome. I would ask if you could kindly avoid mentioning each other in a reply if you feel that is possible so that you can give a completely objective view on the issue. I fear that a strong reason many Wikipedia articles end up done a mis-justice which leads to un-constructive articles is due to the fact people fear edit warring but don't really have an amicable and impartial (but guided) means of discussion. If you do not mind giving this a try perhaps we can solve this issue for the good of what we all love so much and that is - Wikipedia. Thank you.  Olowe2011  Talk 20:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being uncivil in my edit summaries, but this talk page exhibits an already protracted and extremely tedious argument about what main image to use, so my patience is wearing thin. I have already had to notify another user about reverting back to the current image (which there has been a majority of "oppose" votes against, as seen above) seven times, so Nick's edit back to using this image was a continuation of this seven-time edit war whether he realized it or not. JJARichardson (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * JJARichardson I am non of the clearer what the actual issue at hand is. Would you mind explaining it from a objective prospective without brining in the other person or his edits? I apologize if this seems invasive but it is to reach a conclusion that you are both happy with. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand, is why, in the unfortunate abscence of a single decent photographic image of Jeremy Corbyn, any user would only want to use the worst example that we have available. Using a very badly lit crop of a particulary unflattering photograph from an awards ceremony where the guy is distracted by something on the left at the moment the photo was taken is ludicrous. By any definition, File:Jeremy Corbyn and Bianca Jagger 2014.jpg and subsequent edits are simply bad photographs. Use any of the others, but that - despite it's notable participants is junk.Mighty Antar (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather have Jagger. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There are three open RfCs in the sections above on this issue, well intentioned though it may be, rehashing the arguments above in discussion with a small subset of the users that have already contributed in yet another section about photos on this page is unlikely to be more productive than getting the RfCs closed and determining what consensus actually is. Efforts would be much more productive in finding a photo that would be an improvement on the poor suggestions already under consideration. -- ℕ  ℱ  21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * * Has a consensus been reached on which picture editors best feel fits this article and its readers? With regard to rehashing arguments I do strongly suggest that having a look at the edit history might give you an indication as to why this issue has been raised. Disputing my mediation process is another discussion altogether and will not help this one. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you consider any of the existing open discussions before trying to open a new one? -- ℕ  ℱ  21:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * * This isn't an issue about which picture is best its about finding out the facts before one of them goes off thinking they have been hard done by. The facts being if a consensus has already been reached then an amicable assertion can be made of this - if the other editor who feels the image should remain has a good reason why it should such as a proper consensus has not been reached or other such reason then he has the right to express it and for it to be asserted. Pictogram voting comment.svg   Olowe2011  Talk 21:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since no discussion has been closed yet, consensus has not yet been determined. -- ℕ  ℱ  21:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * Then the issue is to assert that fact and try to prevent unfair edits away from the initially disputed image until those discussions are closed and consensus has been reached. The issue here was to prevent a number of other consecutive and destabilizing edits from being made in a short space of time without a proper and just assertion being made as to the status of the image. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * As you seem to be helpful might I inquire as to which image existed prior to the disputes being opened? Then we can revert back to that and assert to both users involved that they must wait for consensus to be reached before making further edits. This discussion simply provided a more formal approach to ensuring either party was fully and fairly made aware as to what they should and should not be editing until Wikipedia "norms" have been adhered to. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the changes of picture bother anyone enough, they can report the edit warring and possible violations of 3RR. There's been sufficient notice and I really don't have much sympathy with editors that know better. Incidentally, please check out WP:THREAD for how threading is meant to work -- ℕ  ℱ  21:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * Which image existed when the first discussion was opened? Furthermore, articles like this should land with the Arbitration Committee if people cannot retain content that is subject to consensus discussion which must be concluded BEFORE editing it out. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you asking someone else to go and do the research for you? -- ℕ  ℱ  21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * Do you happen to know so as to save me the effort or not? Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 21:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * It appears the existing image (as it is now) was in place prior to the discussion being opened therefore it would be right to make the assertion to User:NickCT that he should not partake in further edits of the image until a fair and just consensus has been reached. For the reference of User:NickCT a consensus on Wikipedia is when editors are invited to give their opinions on Wikipedia content. If it should be removed or stayed will be reflected in that discussion. Content should not be edited or reverted until those discussions are concluded, I hope you understand this. (At this point I would have reverted back to the existing image however it appears this has been done for me so thank you to the other editor for that.) Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the image that served this page perfectly well for at least eight years. I've put it back in place until a consensus is reached on using something else. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The previous image which you edited out existed on the page at the point the dispute was opened. The editor is trying to reach consensus on that edit, you should not revert or make any more edits on Wikipedia to that image until consensus has been reached. I am going to revert it back Mighty Antar until consensus has been reached. Please try to understand that the editor made the edit then asked for consensus for his edit therefore allowing his edit to stand until consensus has been reached is fair and right. Additionally that image you have replaced it with doesn't fit within guidelines for a quality image. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Appreciate your considered analysis. I'm a bit confused by the assertion that "It appears the existing image (as it is now) was in place prior to the discussion being opened". It seems clear to me that the last stable image for the infobox was the so-called "image 2" as seen here. Per WP:BRD someone was bold and made a change, a number of editors tried to revert it and now it's up to the folks wanting the new image to show there is consensus for the change. I don't see that consensus has developed for the change, and so I'm going to continue using the historic image.
 * Frankly, this debate is a little WP:LAME since all parties involved seem to agree on the overriding point (i.e. that all the image options we have are bad). We're squabbling over which picture is least bad. I've encouraged editors not to edit war and instead concentrate on finding good images. In reply I've got edit warring and what you have to admit is a pretty disturbing implementation of RfC's above.
 * Can we should be trying to have the productive conversation here, which is the conversation that finds a better image. I don't see the people support the "grin" image having that conversation. NickCT (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think revision 07:49, 12 September 2015 is the first use of the "grin" image. The image became unstable after the change. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * please do stop edit-warring over the image. You're now at the limit of 3RR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Oh but Nomo, I have a sincere concern that there may be a WP:BLP violation, which means I can revert as many times as I want, right? Like you did. NickCT (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light" As I stated above why, in the unfortunate abscence of a single decent photographic image of Jeremy Corbyn, would any user only want to use the worst example that we have available. A very badly lit crop of a particulary unflattering photograph from an awards ceremony where the guy is distracted by something on the left at the moment the photo was taken. By any definition, File:Jeremy Corbyn and Bianca Jagger 2014.jpg and subsequent edits are bad photographs. There was never any consensus on changing the photo as you can see above on the first discussion on image on September 13th. The subsequent "edit war" is a spurious attempt at distraction from what I consider to be mendacious editing. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New image consensus
Hello. I am going to keep this short and sweet. Wikipedia is not a place to field your political matrimony or demonstrate bias. We are here to represent the readers interest so when you see the following images please think to yourself "what would I as the reader want to see here." I would suggest that more people are seeking an objective and straight forward article with no nonsense or bias including a decent image that does not over-represent or under-represent the subject. Image quality is really important for biography images because its central to the purpose in the image existing on the page. If a quality image cannot be established then no image should be added. Simply, a bad image is not a replacement for no image.



 Olowe2011  Talk 11:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Our copyright policy is very clear on this. While I personally like the second image, the availability of a freely licensed image means we can't use non-free-licensed images as alternatives. The solution for this is either (a) Corbyn's office or some other body free-licensing a good-quality portrait image, or (b) a Wikipedian taking such an image themselves. Moreover, the argument that his political campaign is somehow part of his official duties, and that this would make the image Crown Copyright, seems highly unconvincing to me, and even if it were to be Crown Copyright, it still would not be license-compatible for free use here.


 * I also notice that you've nominated Cameron's official image for deletion on Commons. That's not going to fly either, because the Cameron image, which is under the Open Government License, is license-compatible with Wikipedia's copyright policies. -- The Anome (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - This is outrageous. You've done exactly what Nomoskedasticity did above. Instead of offering all the available images and letting people decide, you offer the image you like and another image, which can't be used, for people to choose between. Is this poor judgement or intentional gaming? NickCT (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NickCT The image that was there outright violated copyright policies. The image and its author as shown here clearly and beyond all reasonable doubt make it perfectly known how to use and not to use the image. Firstly its watermarked and secondly there is a disclaimer which basically says no use without permission in a stronger way than usually written. Its better to have no images until its resolved anyway - no point sticking with bad for want of better. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 16:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Bit confused. Are you saying the "grin" photo has copyvio issues? I thought the only copyvio concerns for these two images were for the second one (i.e. the Crown Copyright issue The Anome mentioned). NickCT (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is by See Li and is on flickr under the Creative Commons license 'Attribution 2.0 Generic'. flicker license. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that NickCT is again edit warring to make the 2015 the main photo despite the consensus against it on this very talk page and following his having being ask to stop this. *sigh* JJARichardson (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - There is no consensus. I'm returning the infobox image to its last stable version. If you'd spend some time reading you may find that the image you're trying to use potentially has copyright issues. Quit warring. Start discussing please. NickCT (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * :* JJARichardson I believe that if the image that is being edited out consists of a clear and blatant copyright violation it can be removed however many times it takes. The author of the image here clearly says it must not be used so we are responsible for ensuring it is not used. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is indeed a copyright issue then I regret not picking this up and being bad-tempered, although I wouldn't describe the 2015 photo which there is a majority of votes against as a "stable" alternative. JJARichardson (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Have you reviewed this history of the article? The 2015 photo was vary stable prior to Corbyn becoming shadow PM. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then can we guys agree to keep the images null until a suitable one has been found? User talk:JJARichardson NickCT. It doesn't do anyone anywhere any favours by having ill-presented articles of "knowledge." I would say the best way we can go is no image until a half decent one is found are we in agreement? Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 17:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A poor photo is more informative than no photo.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'd concur w/ Jonpatterns. Something is better than nothing. But for the sake of peace, and as a show of good faith, I won't re-add the image until the copyvio issue on the "grin" image is resolved. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Get rid of the text, but could this be a suitable candidate? Mighty Antar (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad image - professionally done, so if it is usable under copyright law, it is not a bad choice at all. Collect (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already investigated this one. It is taken from a Channel 4 interview. I doubt they are licencing it correctly. JMiall  ₰  19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone thinks an Image that is mine isn't mine so I will reach a consensus on here to pass time. Do people like this image as a place-holder?

( Mighty Antar, Jonpatterns, Jonpatterns, NickCT )

 Olowe2011  Talk 20:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your editing here is so far removed from what is acceptable on wikipedia as to be disruptive. Kindly desist from this. -- ℕ  ℱ  20:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is now absolutely farcical. I have zero interest in participating any further with this ridiculous debacle. JJARichardson (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * *User talk:nonsenseferret What is acceptable to you is not the standard for what is acceptable. Let me make this clear to you Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. If you do not like content you have a means to express it which you have. However, to go as far to make accusations and direct attacks against editors that are driven by opinions rather than facts is unacceptable. Not only does it make for a bad editorial environment but it rarely conveys a point worth considering. As a fellow editor it is your concern to help not make personal attacks. I appreciate constructive criticism - not blatant foolishness. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 20:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Interference whilst editing
Please restore prior to interference regarding Foreign policy etc (2nd para) M Mabelina (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Hi  ℕ  ℱ  - ever since you got involved there has been a formatting problem & edit conflict whenever I try to resolve - I know you are concerned about this so please restore article to read properly - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody interfered with it as far as I can see - this was the actual edit you made which introduced the errors - diff. -- ℕ  ℱ  23:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help - much appreciated - and, please understand my sole concern is for the article to accord with other British politicians' Wiki articles and of course to read properly in English - many thanks again. Best M Mabelina (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)