Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 8

RfC: Place of birth in Infobox
Should the Infobox show Jeremy Corbyn's place of birth as 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' or 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK'? Daicaregos (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The previous RfC (RfC: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK?) has been closed as 'no consensus'. A proposal made during the RfC should now be considered. Please note below how the location of Jeremy Corbyn's place of birth should best be described. The outcome of this RfC will be determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Daicaregos (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England. Documentation for this Infobox (Template: Infobox person) shows 'place of birth' should be shown as “city, administrative region, country” i.e. Chippenham, Wiltshire, England. Anything further is redundant. Daicaregos (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Interesting lack of self-awareness in the absurdity of what you are saying. You are saying, correctly, that the country should be included. Per the International Standards Organisation's ISO 3166-1 the United Kingdom is the country. AusLondonder (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A lack of self-awareness? Perhaps. Though what that has to do with you is another question. So, if the ISO defined England as a country, (page 27), would you show a little humility? This is an encyclopaedia. You should expect to discover information about which you were not previously aware. You're welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The ISO does not define England as a country at ISO 3166-1. I think that is the authoritative statement on the matter. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you will have no problem in getting it clarified at Template talk:Infobox person - because that's not what the template guidance says at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, as per Daicaregos. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * England.  The idea that the UK should be included "because he is the leader of a UK party" is irrelevant and absurd.  We should apply the usual and long-established guidance, to include only England (or Scotland / Wales / NI) in these cases.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - long established you say? Tony Blair - UK. Margaret Beckett - UK. Gordon Brown - UK. AusLondonder (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIRCULAR. We have many inconsistencies and imperfect articles, but the general guidance for text (not infoboxes, I concede - though there's no real reason why they should differ) is at WP:UKNATIONALS.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry how does WP:CIRCULAR apply here? You suggested it was usual and long-established. That's absolute crap. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use one WP article as the basis for another article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on - that's what you suggested though. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No - I suggested that we look at the guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK as the obvious compromise that will enable us to overcome this stupid dispute. (Those who don't want to include "UK" would apparently prefer to perpetuate it...)  The UK is a country and so including it as his birthplace is very much in accordance with our infobox policy.  Interestingly, the UK is not the same as England, so there's no redundancy; Dairarego's contribution is mistaken in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (How many countries called England are there?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (@Nomoskedasticity) Yet those who were quite happy to allow a disgraceful close were happy to have their preferred description in the Infobox. No-one has compelled you to participate in this. If you thought this RfC stupid, why are you here? By the way, are you displaying your childishness with your use of my username, or your incompetence? Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK depends on your definition of country I guess, but the state (i.e. the UK) seems to be what was intended to be meant by “city, administrative region, country” Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I guess"... "seems to be"...  Well, that's definitive enough, then.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom - You brits are such self-important pansies. You think the distinction between Wales/Scotland/England/N. Ireland actually matters, but guess what...... nobody but you actually cares. Hearing you folks whine about how there's a difference between a Scot and an English is tiresome to folks from countries less obsessed by cultural irrelevancies. The distinction you keep drawing between "England" and the "United Kingdom" only serves to confuse readers from countries that actually matter (like the US). Maybe if you quit the bickering and just called the whole thing the UK other countries would look to you for more than just royal baby news and Downton Abbey. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Winner of this month's "Loving Hands Across the Pond Award". It's a shame "royal baby news and Downton Abbey" are so archetypically English. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but thanks for the lower case b.
 * - Awwwww..... I'm sorry guys. I didn't mean to hurt feelings. It's not just the royal babies and Downton Abbey that we like. There's also Braveheart. Dr. Who is a little quirky but cool (and not too feudalistic).
 * On a serious note though, these distinctions might be relevant within the UK, but they're less relevant and potentially confusing outside the UK. WP is written for the world. Not for the UK. Not even for the US..... NickCT (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for anyone else, but my feelings weren't hurt. If you think this doesn't matter and you don't care, why are you here? Is it just to be unnecessarily rude? Daicaregos (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I like to think I was being necessarily rude. There was a serious point. The distinction between the UK and England might not be particularly useful for a general/international audience. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you need to read Talk page guidelines. Your 'serious point' was lost in the crass, rude and, quite frankly, unacceptable racism. Daicaregos (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Racism? Last time I checked the British isles were predominately occupied by a single race of peoples. Regardless, I seem to have brushed against some folks wearing their cultural sensitivities on their sleeves. Sorta goes to show my point. This clearly means more to you guys than it does to anyone else. Get over it. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK because the sovereign state of birth should be indicated and England is not a sovereign state. England can be mentioned as it seems to matter for some readers and in order to reach a compromise. Wykx  (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * England, UK - as the United Kingdom is the sovereign state. As well, Corbyn is the Leader of the Opposition in the British Parliament (House of Commons). We must respect that our readers are international, not just British. Therefore, seeing Denmark, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, France etc, in other bios, but not seeing the United Kingdom in British bios, can be confusing & misleading. In this article (for examlpe), we wouldn't want readers mistaking 'England' for the 'United Kingdom', which many Americans tend to do ;) Also, we don't want less informed readers thinking that England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland are sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Though I prefer using just United Kingdom, I've chosen to accept the compromise. Entrenchment is never the best route. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom or England, UK - Documentation for this Infobox (Template: Infobox person) unambiguously states 'place of birth' should be shown as “city, administrative region, country”. England is not a country (as in sovereign state). Let's remember that English nationalism and anti-UK sentiment is causing this dispute. As I stated in last RfC: "I strongly favour having the country (ie sovereign state) listed in the infobox. It is standard. The UK is a unitary state. Can you imagine US bios saying Born: "Houston, Texas"? Nationalism is a primary motivating factor here. Individuals born in the Soviet Union, almost without exception, list the country as Soviet Union". If England is a country please tell me why it's not listed on the International Standards Organisation country code list? AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there are several different definitions of "country" - of which "sovereign state" is just one. It may be the one which you personally prefer to use, but please don't purport to speak for other people.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally I think the International Standards Organisation is pretty reliable to be honest. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone questions its reliability - but it uses one particular definition. Other definitions exist.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * England would need an update, as it starts "England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we 'might' be getting to the 'core' of the problems here. IMHO, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland should be described as constituent countries (an argument I've put forward, for several years now) in order to avoid confusion for readers. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with that it is evident some people are confused about the difference between a sovereign country and a constituent country.  may I ask what other definitions exist? Your one? Is that on the same reliability level of the ISO? AusLondonder (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not my definition - I suggest you read our article... or a competent dictionary if you prefer.    The idea that England is not a country, is, frankly, too silly to be taken seriously.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't a country. I said it was a constituent country. Did you miss that? AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So... you agree that it is a country? Thank you for... umm...  clarifying.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding constituent as a descriptive, would help non-British readers. Anyways, I'll leave that up to others. I got enough bangs over the head in the past, when I strongly pushed for this. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To all those supporting England: It seems you set at the same importance constituents and sovereign countries. Could you explain why? It would help to understand why you support England. Wykx  (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean "all those supporting just England", don't you (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, including you ;) Maybe you can answer? Wykx  (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a choice. I get as far as England, and just stop there. That's not to say I can't also blame the past 500 years of history, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you decline to consider that sovereign countries like UK exist (that's what I understand when you write "I get as far as England, and just stop there", it will be difficult to have a WP:NPOV. Wykx  (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they exist, But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks I understand that you live and fight for England but WP is a global encyclopedia. Any other more neutral feedback? Wykx  (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you. And I'd certainly never live and fight for England. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disappointed. I think it's clear now we have no factual opposition for "England, UK". Wykx  (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UK is unnecessary. As Ghmyrtle has pointed out, Template talk:Infobox person calls for a country. England is a country. Simple as. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - The difference between a "sovereign state" and a "country" is one that's going to be different for Brits than for everyone else. You're looking at it from a Brit-centric viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly aligned with Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
 * I don't think you understood the question. Of course England and UK are countries. The question is which one is the most appropriate to include. You don't want to answer the question why England. I could answer : "UK is a country. Simple as.": we wouldn't go further. The difference is between a constituent country and a sovereign country. When you compare countries in the world, constituent countries are comparable between each others because they are part of a sovereign countries, but if you want to compare a constituent country with a sovereign country, they don't have the same attributes. At a global scale, the sovereign countries are the ones which are at the same level of representation and hierarchy. Wykx  (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand my reply. Template:Infobox person doesn't ask for "sovereign state", does it? And you don't need UK, because there are no other Englands. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Mike Eman was born in the Netherlands, wasn't he, but his article just says Aruba.
 * There aren't any other Wiltshires either but I guess you're not suggesting leaving it at "Wiltshire". Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well no, because Template talk:Infobox person calls for a country? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) - Ding, ding, ding! Wykx gets today's best policy cite. Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ is exactly the point. This stuff shouldn't be written in a way only relevant to Brits. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ding, ding, ding! England is relevant the world over, or so I'm told. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Just because you don't have any constituent countries - don't bring your jealousy here! lol.
 * And the UK is a country. You know, a country in the sense that every other country in the world is a country – not a constituent country within another state. The point made above about a non-British-centric focus is extremely valid. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm only jealous that we don't have any royal babies. NickCT (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See the list below - for every other sovereign state made up of constituent countries, we list the constituent country, not the sovereign state. So, for every country in the world, we list country, not sovereign state.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I already answered in the previous RfC that "The first (and all the followings) example of Template:Infobox_officeholder/example is Lamar, Missouri, U.S.. We have even an example of London, United Kingdom for the death place." I also wrote you that "In my opinion, examples should also be considered as best practices if they are not challenged for good reasons". And you didn't answer to that. Wykx  (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That essay is not a 'policy cite' ("This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline"). Please don't portray it as such. Daicaregos (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed but it is "an explanatory supplement to the Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy" which is a policy. So "they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter". Let's follow this advice. Wykx  (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! Well put Wykx . NickCT (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK - -- BOD --  17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK – since I see simply "UK" is interestingly not an option this time around. The sovereign state is included in instances involving every other country on the planet, so why the UK should be any different is an eyebrow raiser. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not independent countries and any suggestion or implication to the contrary should be avoided at all times. The composition and political status of the UK is confusing enough for non-Brits as it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What "instances" are these? You're saying non-Brits will be confused by the use of the word "England", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)  (p.s. you're going to be very busy adding "UK" to all examples of those, as places of birth, in all relevant BLP articles?)
 * Well, (I thought obviously) instances of other infoboxes with country names in them. I did say "every other country", not "every other infobox". And yes, I am saying that non-Brits can be confused by the political status of the UK and its constituent countries. I have personally had to explain it to non-Brits more times than I care to remember. People overseas aren't born with this knowledge. (p.s. No I'm not, because mass changes of that type are not allowed per consensus) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm still not sure what you mean. Instances of what? Instances of not using a constituent country because there isn't one? Yes, I'd agree there are lots of those. There's no choice about what to use. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. When someone writes an article and uses an infobox involving birth places / death places, he uses the name of the sovereign state. France. Belgium. Bolivia. Malaysia. Etc. There's no higher level to go to and it's clear and unambiguous for all readers. You appear to be saying we should avoid using "UK" for no other reason than we have a potentially confusing, lower-level alternative and we should use that, regardless of who may or may not understand the situation. Or do you actually believe that every reader will understand? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I realise that sovereign states can't be constituent countries in other sovereign states. I'm suggesting that if a reader doesn't know that England is part the UK, they can use an encyclopedia to find out. It might involve clicking on a blue link. Once they have learned that, they won't have to be constantly reminded, in a somewhat irritatingly redundant way, that England is always followed by "UK". There are no other countries called England. Quite an easy concept to learn really. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia. Why not make it easier for non-British readers to find out here, that England is a part of the United Kingdom. Why make them check a book? GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, so it is. Did I mention a blue link somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about making it as easy as possible for readers, to learn that England is a part of the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We are not in the business of making readers look something up when it can be so easily explained. "England" shouldn't be linked anyway, per WP:OLINK. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you know, I realise it's an investment of a whole left mouse button press. One might hope that inquisitiveness might prompt a reader there. I think we kind of assume readers will click on links, don't we? I see a difference between "helping readers learn" and constantly cluttering infoboxes with redundant information. I guess that's a subjective thing. I don't even know how one would find suitable novices to use as subjects in an experimentally robust testing paradigm. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a subjective thing. I don't think it's redundant at all. Certainly no more redundant than the constituent country. But that's why I'm advocating the presence of both. You know, as a compromise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you make some valid points. And I respect you for seeking a compromise. I'm now wondering why we're having this debate here and not at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, where a more useful and wide-ranging consensus might be achieved. Is there something special about Corbyn, or is it just because he's most recently arrived as a leader? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the examples given are quite clear : first example in the template is "Lamar, Missouri, U.S." and the example of death place is "London, United Kingdom". Wykx  (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two examples? That should cover everything, then? And are those examples, exemplars or directions? Do they tell us that, while US States are required, English counties are forbidden? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These are the official examples of the templates yes; and certainly England, U.K. is aligned with Missouri, U.S. Wykx  (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're already departing from the template advice by using Wiltshire? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on, there are two Chippenham in England, UK. Wykx  (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the above - the failure to include any other of the options in this RFC is in my view a fatal flaw thus rendering any result invalid. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If only you'd told us at the start. Looks like it's time for RfC No 3. Except it shouldn't even be placed here at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK. Surely the intention behind the requirement to name the "country" is to specify the sovereign state, as would happen in 99% of WP bios. The fact that due to a quirk of nomenclature and history the UK, possibly uniquely, is a country that consists of other countries is not a reason to depart from consistent application of that basic principle and offer a special and potentially misleading get-out for UK-born people (all of them, not just Corbyn). England, or Wales or whatever, can be additional to it if necessary but should not replace UK. As others have noted, WP is an international resource. As for what's more precise or informative, surely "England, UK" is better on both counts than simply "England", and hardly that much more cumbersome. It seems a little odd that one or two people are being quite so insistent that these pages simply cannot have those extra two letters.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that the discussion is wholly misplaced here, when it belongs to all UK BLPs? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, although if we can expend this many words over the inclusion of two letters on one person's page, I dread to think what would happen in any search for a site-wide agreement. Especially given both legitimate problems re Northern Ireland and the petty nationalism displayed by many editors on UK issues. Previous debates about consistency over what is meant by "nationality" in a UK context and how to present the information have never gone well, for example; nor have they ever reached a conclusion.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A site-wide agreement attempt? It's likely that nobody knows better then I, what kinda resistance there is out there, to using the terms British in the intros & United Kingdom or UK in the infoboxes of (strangely enough) British bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And (strangely enough) US editors are unable to exhibit any comparable resistance to using terms other than American? In the same way that they can't show any preference in using the name of their constituent county instead of their sovereign country? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What else do Americans call themselves, besides Americans. What else do Canadians call themselves, besides Canadian. What else do Russian call themselves besides Russian, etc etc. Again, we're just going in circles here, you & I. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They have no choice. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all: Quebec_referendum,_1995 but they are Canadians. Wykx  (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, those folks had a choice, for a second time, over whether to become a different national sovereignty, and voted against it. But they were never going to become a new constituent country. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Resolve at template level I find the level of debate over this on the Jeremy Corbyn page unfathomable considering the same potential issue applies to over 600 other current politicians in Westminster alone, and if it matters this much it should be consistent (or at least a set of sensible guidelines, such preferring "Scotland, UK" for any Scot serving in the UK Parliament except nationalists who would identify as being born in "Scotland" alone). Meanwhile, nobody gets upset over how to describe Tim Farron (born Preston, England, UK) who was appointed leader of a UK party around the same time Dtellett (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object, if this infobox discussion was expanded to cover all British bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - That's true. This probably isn't the right place to be asking some of these broader questions. NickCT (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I reckon these discussions would be quite nasty, if they involved Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland :( GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they're all crying over in Sheffield. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I reckon you're right. But that doesn't mean we should shy away from the discussion. NickCT (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you all wish to expand this Rfc, to cover all British bio infoboxes? then I'll go along with it :) GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt we'll get anywhere, but the conversation is probably worth having. If for nothing else than to highlight how silly some of the sentiments surrounding the issue are.
 * Anyone want to weigh-in on the best place to have the debate? NickCT (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the debate is only on British bios? Because for other countries there is no debate, we use the sovereign country so I don't see the point of making an exception for UK. Wykx  (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike Eman, etc., etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * England IS a country - as noted in the first sentence of its WP article... JezGrove (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the same type of country though, as the UK, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, etc etc. Something that Wikipedia should be making more clear. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, but it isn't that clear cut. Although Sovereign state claims "In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished" there has been a 'citation needed' tag at the end of that claim since January 2011! JezGrove (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be clear cut. Neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are independent states. Anyways, I've been around the old 'pedia for over 10-yrs & believe me, I know how strong the resistance is to using British & United Kingdom in (strangely enough) British bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - The strong resistance probably reflects Brit's weird sense of self-identity. Which, again, is why the way we're currently doing this is a violation of Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean "weird". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "only on British bios" - Yes. Question is - "Should the Country Born field in the bio box for people born in the modern day UK read UK or the name of the subnational entity in which they were born?". NickCT (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But specifically with regard to Corbyn, he doesn’t lead the Labour Party in Scotland, or Wales, and the Labour Party doesn’t even exist in Northern Ireland – so probably 'England' is the most appropriate country to consider here? BTW, I see Nicola Sturgeon's info box says she was born in Scotland. JezGrove (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * However, the party that Corbyn leads, is a British political party, not just an English political party. Also, he's the UK Leader of the opposition. If his party wins the next general election? he'll become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not the First Minister of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to prolong the pain here. But where are you going with this GoodDay? Do we look to an opinion poll to gauge how likely is that premiershio? JezGrove makes a valid point, but we're looking here at where he was born. He was quite small then, wasn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a "preniershio" is. But, I do know that you aren't gonna convince me to support your preference & I'm not gonna convince you to support my preference. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, GoodDay, I meant "premiership". Apologies for making that spelling mistake which has thrown you so badly. I was referring to your statement "he'll become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." You think place of birth should be decided by possible future career? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just clarifying to JezGrov, that the UK Labour Party covers all of the United Kingdom, not just England. As for Nicola Sturgeon? she should have UK in her infobox, too. My primary goal is to clarify things for non-British readers. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can agree that Corbyn's hypothetical future as UK Prime Minister is an irrelevant dead heron. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the solution is indeed to replace in the template "city, administrative region, country" by "city, administrative region, sovereign state". It would avoid discussion on what is a country. Wykx  (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it would solve the problem. But, I know from experience, that there would be many editors who'd dig in their heals & oppose such a change to that template. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Provided they "dug in their heals & opposed" for good reasons, that would be ok, wouldn't it? But I think you mean heels, don't you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - We're asking whether this is a discussion that should be had more broadly. In other words, for the UK peoples in general should there be a general rule. Where exactly Corbyn leads the labor party isn't all that relevant. NickCT (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Any takers for Alpha Centuri, ... ok bad joke, in the wrong place.... i go get my hat -- BOD --  12:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of your best, I fear. Although don't confuse a tangerine dream with a red one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England, UK - We're never going to come to any agreement with "England vs UK" and will just keep going around in circles so to settle it once & for all (hopefully!) I think we should reach a compromise and use both ie "England, UK", As I found out in the previous RFC many articles define "administrative region, country" in different ways so IMHO we should just reach a compromise and go with the next best thing. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - You mean, not everyone loves the circles? (sarc mark) But seriously, my suspicion is that Brits will heavily favor the "Country & Soveriegn" state method, while non-Brits will favor the other option. Which is exactly why we should be trying to pay more attention to Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Though there is also a case for regarding this as a form of WP:ENGVAR, and accepting that, for many people living within the United Kingdom, the constituent countries are more defining in terms of identity than the sovereign state. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but this personnality is internationally reknowned. Wykx  (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't alter my point. Tony Blair is internationally renowned, but we still use British English within his article, as per WP:ENGVAR. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed that's where Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) should apply: "Disambiguation should not normally be to England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland". The correct title is Chippenham, Wilthshire, U.K. where Wilthshire is the ceremonial county in case of England as per Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Wykx  (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That naming convention is referring to disambiguating between similarly named settlements within the UK, and doesn't seem relevant to this issue, which is connected to identity and nationality. I recommend anyone who believes that removing the constituent country to be culturally acceptable in such situations, to go into a public bar in somewhere like Caernarfon and advise the assembled native patrons of said establishment that they weren't born in Wales but in the United Kingdom. I'd be happy to observe the proceedings, and would promise to call the ambulance quickly. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely the problem here: this isn't – or shouldn't be – about "identity". It's about noting a place of birth informatively and, ideally, according to consistent principles whether we're talking about Corbyn or anyone else. Also the proposal here is not to exclude the constituent country, but simply about adding "UK" after it.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * England I don't buy the 'making it easier for anyone who doesn't know that England is in the UK' line. That's why we have hyperlinks.  We don't explain every aspect of everything in every article - if we did, we'd end up with the whole encyclopedia in every article.  Because this is so controversial, there's not going to be consistency here.  But a quick scout around for similar situations shows:
 * Henry Puna was born in the Cook Islands, not New Zealand.
 * Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi was born in Ajman, not the United Arab Emirates.
 * Hamad bin Mohammed Al Sharqi was born in Fujairah, UAE.
 * Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi was born in Dubai, UAE (and looks like the bad guy out of some children's film in that photo...)
 * Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Mark Rutte were born in Netherlands, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 * Mike Eman was born in Aruba, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 * Lucille George-Wout was born in Curaçao, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 * William Marlin was born in Sint Maarten, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 * Kim Kielsen was born in Greenland, not the Kingdom of Denmark.
 * Aksel V. Johannesen was born in the Faroe Islands, not the Kingdom of Denmark.
 * Margrethe II of Denmark and Lars Løkke Rasmussen were born in Denmark, not the Kingdom of Denmark.
 * Those are all political figures born in countries that are not sovereign states and the large majority give their birthplace in the infobox as the country, not the sovereign state. Of these 13 examples, one gives country and sovereign state (like 'England, UK') and one gives sovereign state (like 'UK').  The remainder all give just the country (equivalent to 'England').  I haven't been picky here; the only people I skipped including in this list are the ones whose place of birth is given as a political entity of some kind (country, sovereign state, overseas territory, dependency, protectorate...) that existed at the time of their birth but no longer exists (I thought that would be a needless complication).  So why is 'England' so controversial when it's the almost-universal practice for other, similar countries?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I realise this list is not exhaustive; if anyone else wants to pursue this survey further, I found Constituent country a useful starting place.GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've mentioned Mike Eman twice already. Thanks for pointing this out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But if we're talking about consistency, it should be to a principle, not to other pages that may also be out of line, as it were. Also I'm not sure the Netherlands example, which has been cited previously, is analogous. Yes they are sometimes described as "constituent countries" which seem to be technically part of the kingdom, but they're more akin to British Overseas Territories, geographically and politically etc (that's how for example the BBC Country Profile treats them). Here we're talking about geographically contiguous home nations in a unitary state. The UAE is perhaps a closer comparison, and according to the examples above, bios do tend to append it to the constituent emirate. Adding two or three letters for clarity doesn't seem to me to be loading too much detail in. And of course there's the counter reductio ad absurdum argument that if we say "oh, everyone knows that", we needn't bother including half the content on many WP pages.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is this "principle" established? Your "half the content on many WP pages" is a complete straw man.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's perhaps an issue for wider debate, but as far as I am concerned, the reference to the country of birth must mean the sovereign state, per common usage and as it will in 99% of WP bios; plus otherwise it can mean anything. As for the observation about "half the content", it was a direct response to the point about having to put the entire encyclopedia in every article, and you surely noted I have already acknowledged that it, too, was an exaggerated point?  N-HH   talk / edits  12:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that your "counter reductio ad absurdum argument" comment was a response. Yes, wider debate, not just focusing on "13 year olds in the US or the DRC", is probably wise. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the UAE discussion leads where you want; the ones I skipped because the entity they were born in doesn't exist any more were all from the UAE and were all, technically, born in the United Kingdom, since that was the sovereign state there at the time. None of them list UK as their birthplace, though.  Are you really suggesting that, "Abu Dhabi, UK" is the right birthplace for them?  Just saying, "It should always be the sovereign state," as per many above, just doesn't work - that would make anyone born in Australia before independence actually born in the UK.  And then there's the argument to be had over when Australia became independent enough to not list the UK in birthplaces - is it 1901, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1939, 1942, 1948, 1968, 1973, 1975 or 1986?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with the list as Cook Islands, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Greenland, Faroe Islands are oversea territories; Ajman is a city and not a state in that context; UAE, Netherlands and Denmark are sovereign countries. England is neither an oversea territory, nor a city, nor a sovereign state. Wykx  (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Yes. I think folks are being a little naive when they say "Aruba is to the Kingdom of the Netherlands what Scotland is to the UK". There's a pretty distinct geographical and cultural difference between Aruba and the rest of the Netherlands. That's just not so for Scotland. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Netherlands and Denmark are not "sovereign countries", as you'd know if you'd bothered to look up the linked articles. Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark are sovereign states.  Netherlands and Denmark are constituent countries within those kingdoms (eg the first sentence of Netherlands: 'The Netherlands ... is the main "constituent country" ... of the Kingdom of the Netherlands').  It even has a note at the top explaining the difference.  And all of the example articles for politicians I linked to above have infoboxes that wikilink to the constituent country, not to the sovereign state.
 * Once again, I encourage you to look at the official UN list where you will find that official names used are Denmark and Netherlands for those two kingdoms, same when you click on Denmark and Netherlands. When you click on England, you don't go to UK.  Wykx  (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So there is a disconnect/ inconsistency with how Wikipedia treats the status of UK with that of Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark? This should be corrected in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, I can't vouch for what you see, but when I click on Netherlands I see This article is about the constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Don't you?  GoldenRing (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Scotland and England have a homogeneous culture? I'm not sure I'd say so in downtown Glasgow on a Saturday night.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are editors suggesting that the comparison between England and, say, Aruba, has to take geographical proximity or indeed cultural similarity into account? I thought the comparison was to be on a purely constitutional basis, i.e. that England is a constituent country of a sovereign state. Otherwise, where do you draw the line - language? ethnic composition? religion? currency etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're born in England, you're also born in UK. If you're born in Aruba, you're not born in the Netherlands, which refers to a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands commonly named Netherlands. Wykx  (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. But I thought somebody had proposed some kind of strict rule about the use of "sovereign state" for place of birth in info boxes? We'd have to change all the boxes for Netherlands-born people too, would we? Or are you now saying that what is "commonly used" to describe a country is perfectly ok? You know, if we have the opportunity to help any 13-year olds who have escaped from North Korea, to learn about the constitutional arrangements in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, we should take it, shouldn’t we? (... although it would be better if it could invent a two-letter name for itself to fit better in our infobox). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I say we have to stick to Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) and it is aligned with it. Wykx  (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * re "Are you suggesting that Scotland and England have a homogeneous culture?" - No two places are totally culturally homogeneous. Texas has a culture distinct from the rest of the US, yet folks born in Dallas are still usually described as American before Texan.
 * And to answer your question more directly. Yes. I think Scotland and England are more homogeneous than are Aruba and Holland. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Folks born in Dallas are described as American before Texan because Texan is not a nationality, and Texas is not a country. Daicaregos (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would advise not saying that to a Texan. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Texas is a country? News to me. Do you have any sources for that? Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - True dat.
 * - re "Are you suggesting that Texas is a country?" - No. Of course he isn't. But that's not the point. The point is, if Texas, like Scotland, has cultural identity and nationalist sentiment (which it does), why is someone born in Dallas born in "America" not "Texas" according to WP, but someone born in Aberdeen is born in "Scotland" not "the UK"? NickCT (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Country has multiple meanings. Therefore, just because E/W/S/NI are called countries? that doesn't mean they belong on equal footing with sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I am saying that verifiable reliable sources (per the Wikipedia policy WP:RS) commonly define the location of Chippenham as England, which is consistent with the template documentation for this Infobox. That's why we should show Jeremy Corbyn's place of birth as 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you're refusing to accept that country has multiple meanings. England is within a sovereign state called the United Kingdom & there's no sources that can repudiate that. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider the term "constituent country". The clue is in the second word.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and the issue in the first word. Wykx  (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that a "constituent country" is a form of country? The term indicates that it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Consider the term "constituent country". The clue is in the first word. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are nouns currently trumping adjectives in the WP:MoS? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "England, UK" somewhere, not necessarily infobox: I think this is a more complex question than what to do at this article, with this particular infobox, or with regard to just the UK. More below in the section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * England, UK We obviously wouldn't identify Francois Mitterand as being from "Jamac, Charente" because very few people would know Charente is part of France. While it seems find to include administrative sub-divisions like "England" the state should be included. The template obviously didn't anticipate this level of parsing. LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
TBH folks, if it were up to me, we'd have United Kingdom or UK included in all British bio articles infoboxes, to make things clearer for non-British readers. Unfortunately, its' not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (per WP:RS). I have looked at how reliable sources describe Chippenham. Broadsheet newspapers the world over refer to it as a location in England. Even those newspapers in North America, whom editors here seem to think would be easily confused by excluding the sovereign state, locate Chippenham in England. Of all the sources, I saw only one (a single blog from China, which is not a RS anyway) that said 'Chippenham, UK'. Some sources (particularly in NZ, India and Africa) say 'Chippenham, Wiltshire'. Here are some examples: Buenos Aires Herald: "Chippenham, southwest England"; The Australian: "Chippenham, England" (paywall for full article); The Sydney Morning Herald: "Chippenham, England"; La Presse, Canada: "Chippenham, dans le sud-ouest de l'Angleterre"; The Globe and Mail, Canada: "Chippenham, England”; China Daily: “Chippenham, southern England”; Cyprus Mail: “Chippenham, southwest England”; L'Express, France: "Chippenham, dans le sud-ouest de l'Angleterre"; la Repubblica, Italy: "Chippenham, Inghilterra"; Today, Singapore: "CHIPPENHAM, England"; ABC, Spain: "Chippenham (sur de Inglaterra)"; The New Zealand Herald: "Chippenham, southwest England"; New York Times: "Chippenham, England"; Washington Post "Chippenham, England"; Chicago Tribune: "Chippenham, western England". Hope this helps. Daicaregos (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chippenham in Wiltshire is certainly much bigger, and better known than the one in Cambridgeshire. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying "follow the sources" may superfically meet WP standards, but of course it's a fundamentally flawed approach in this sort of case. Firstly, WP infoboxes are not about narrative text in media articles. Secondly, different sources have different standards and styles, and media sources mentioning places in passing are unlikely to be consistent within themselves anyway - it depends entirely on context. The point is to be try to be consistent in principle as a matter of presentation on WP. The suggestion to include "country" in the infobox guidance is clearly, surely, intended to refer to the sovereign state. I can understand the argument that it might be unnecessary, but that seems trumped by that fact that it will add information and clarity for some readers, for the sake of two letters. And it's only controversial for those who choose to make it so.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) "...clearly, surely, intended to refer to the sovereign state..."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chippenham (in Wiltshire) is the PRIMARY TOPIC, isn't it. Chippenham, Cambridgeshire appears at the DAB page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying "follow the sources" doesn't “superfically meet WP standards ”. It is Wikipedia's standard. Citing sources is not something you can choose to ignore if you don't like what they say, it is a fundamental principle for all Wikipedia articles, and that includes anywhere in article space. And it only became controversial here when someone changed the Infobox from England to UK. Daicaregos (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I can't prove it's meant to refer to the sovereign state of course, or that it has to, but common usage in this sort of context and the fact that it will in 99% of "overseas" biographies, since most places don't have this naming quirk, surely points in that direction. And if which we should use in UK cases really is an issue for some people, using both seems such an obvious and easy option, with the only real downside being that, to say it again, it adds all of two letters to an infobox. If that helps some 13 year olds in the US or the DRC, and avoids people fighting over whether it should be "England" or "United Kingdom", I can't what the problem is or why it takes thousands of words of debate (OK, I'll stop adding to that now ..)  N-HH   talk / edits  12:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You cite common usage as if only your (uncited) opinion of that usage is noteworthy. Common usage clearly shows from those cited examples above, that defining Chippenham's location as England is common usage. As for helping people in the US or China understand locations, clearly, newspaper editors in those countries don't believe that saying 'Chippenham, England' will cause such problems to their readers. Daicaregos (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has yet shown me a source, that proves that England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are sovereign states (i.e independent). It's too bad that attempts are being made to hide the United Kingdom/UK from our non-British readers, who make up a majority of Wikipedia readers :( GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And nobody has yet shown me a Wikipedia guideline that requires "sovereign state" to be used for place of birth in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look again at Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Wykx  (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look again at that guideline, which says, "By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So why does the consensus says "Disambiguation should not normally be to England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland". Because this is the WP policy on this contentious question (I this the length of this RfC proves it IS contentious). Beyond news articles, look at common uses on sites sites like trip advisor sites or rental house companies, they use Chippenham, UK. Wykx  (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's cos Corbyn ain't no white trailer trash. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UK 1 point - England 0 ? Wykx  (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I might give that contribution a half. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Even if it were relevant (which it isn't) whether England is or is not a sovereign state, it is a country and verifiable reliable sources define the location of Chippenham as England, showing common usage. Daicaregos (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very sad, our non-British readers are being deprived of such valuable info, due to such stiff resistance by some to add 'two' letters - UK. :( GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But not-aligned with geographical name WP policy... Wykx  (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * PS- You should concentrate on convincing the others of your arguments. You & I never have and never will agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say ... time and time and time again. Yet even you might have noticed that all those verifiable reliable sources defining the location of Chippenham as England, shown above, were written for non-British readers. I am sure others did, without it having to be pointed out. Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not convincing me of anything. Concentrate on convincing the others who've opted for England, UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying that reliable sources define the location of Chippenham as England is neither here nor there. England is in the UK, so all those sources also confirm that Chippenham is in the UK. Reliable sources are no use in determining what is effectively a style issue. That isn't what WP:V and WP:RS are all about. Perhaps those in favour of excising "UK" from infoboxes should try an RfC aimed at banning its use. See how far that gets. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Such an Rfc wouldn't succeed. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps, as Dtellett has sensibly suggested, this issue should be resolved at template level. Perhaps a friendly passing non-involved admin will hat this discussion and we can then open an RfC at the Template Talk page and go from there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My past experience on this topic, tells me that some who oppose adding the UK, will fight to the dagger to prevent country from being changed to sovereign state, in that proposed Template Rfc :( GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be a lively debate, then, especially if you're from Arizona. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's necessary to have such an Rfc. But, since there's some editors determined to use country as a reason to push England onto the same stage as Japan, Norway, Italy, Russia etc etc? Then have the Template Rfc. Afterall, there can only be 2 results - change to sovereign state, or keep as country. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If one tenth of the effort spent "discussing" here were spent clarifying matters at a template RfC, this kind of argument might be avoided at countless other bio articles. But it seems you fear a UK steamroller. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of those opposing the compromise & still pushing for just 'England', have used the argument that England is a country or nation & therefore should be treated like Canada, Jamaica, Australia, etc etc. I was just wondering, does the Commonwealth of Nations have 53 members? or 55/56 members? The CoN seems to have the United Kingdom as 'one' member & not E/W/S or E/W/S/NI as seperate members. The CoN doesn't appear to have any problems distinguishing between the meaning of country/nation. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox template advice says nothing about the Commonwealth of Nations. It just says "country". But I agree it would seem fair to describe UK as "a nation with four constituent countries". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * “Some of those opposing the compromise & still pushing for just 'England', have used the argument that England is a country or nation & therefore should be treated like Canada, Jamaica, Australia, etc etc.” you say. I haven't seen anyone saying 'England should be treated like Canada', or any other countries. I think you just made that up. Please provide the diffs to show you aren't lying. Daicaregos (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that statement, consider it retracted. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Template
Some here, have suggested that this dispute should be expanded to Template infobox, with an Rfc begun there. I happen to agree with them, as this type of dispute is going to occur again & again in other British bio infoboxes. Getting 'country' changed to 'sovereign state' at that Template, would put an end to opposition against adding the United Kingdom/UK to infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or getting "country" clarified as country might put an end to an insistence that UK is always added after any of its individual constituent counties. Or there might be some kind of compromise worked out that allowed long discussions like this one to be avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that England is a constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You want a compromise? What the fuck??  If you want a compromise, then compromise -- don't resist it by perpetuating this sort of dispute.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The compromise offered here at this Rfc, is England, UK. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that overwhelmingly strong show of WP:AGF. I was suggesting it as a possibility for all bio articles not just this one. But perhaps we shouldn't bother and just do it over and over again for all UK politicians. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This should be dealt with in a more general forum – either at the infobox template or on a page like WP:UKNATIONALS – and the discussion here shut off and hatted. Not only is it taking up far too much space on Corbyn's page but the issue has wider application too of course. The discussion here is, as ever, also going round in circles and generating fairly pointless rancour (I gave up well before some of my perfectly reasonable and practical observations started generating hilarious sarcastic gibes in response). I'd add FWIW that those participating who explicitly favour either constituent country or sovereign state on its own ought to realise that they are never going to get agreement for their preferred option: the "other" side will always have both the numbers and perfectly plausible arguments, based on precedent, guidance and the fact that the word country does indeed have different meanings, for which level of country should be used for UK bios. The debate here kicked off when UK was changed to England and then the country cleared out altogether. As I and others have consistently said, having both is the only realistic long-term option. It's a compromise in which both sides get their way, and which does not unnecessarily burden the infobox, while also being more informative overall. I still don't understand why such an obvious and simple solution is opposed with such vehemence and persistence. I get that some people would prefer the constituent country over the country-state, or vice-versa, but I don't get why they would be so adamant that the other has to be excised from the page. That's Wikipedia for you I guess.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realise you had given up. Can editors at least agree the best venue for a higher level discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Template Infobox would be best. UKNATS, is a disaster zone ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "it's a interesting source of lively informed debate?" Has our friend User:SMcCandlish not set everyone straight yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I even have a strong opinion about this. It comes up a lot for US states, too. Does  really know that Montana is part of the US and Manitoba is in Canada?  That New Brunswick isn't part of New England? That New England and British Columbia aren't part of the UK? That Northern Ireland is? That Wales is a country-but-not-nation of the UK but that Cornwall is not?  And so on.  Increasing clarity by adding "UK" or "US" or "Canada", as appropriate, to infoboxes seems to come at a very low cost.  But isn't it contextual?  Since infoboxes are so compressed, maybe this shouldn't be in the infobox, but in the body.  And most of us seem to think it superfluous in citations (e.g. "New York: Foobarbaz Press", not "New York City, New York, US: Foobarbaz Press").  I would think that this is a better question to settle at Village Pump, or with a WP:CENT-advertised RfC at at WT:MOSLAYOUT or some other venue, and not limited to UK-related determination.  I agree that fighting it out article-by-article isn't very useful.  We should just have a standard approach to being helpful-but-not-browbeating with regard to complex geographical locations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds extremely reasonable. One of the most sensible comments in this entire discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC) and look... I didn't even say "what the fuck"...

- - Let's move it template infobox! Let's go! NickCT (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Infobox officeholder? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * England It gives a percise location in within the UK. RFC Member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * UK Responding to RFC 12th March. Follows wiki set structure. US bios don't list state even though many states are far larger than whole of UK. Isthisuseful (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Are you sure about that? But it's just size that matters, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is unresolved. It was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Request close by uninvolved admin. Daicaregos (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeepers, I wonder if this Rfc will 'ever' be closed. I reckon, all we can do is wait :( GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Something I don't understand about this conflict is why Wiltshire is even there. Wiltshire is a county right? The kind of counties like County Cavan in Ireland or Los Angeles County in California of the U.S. Well counties shouldn't be included in the place of birth unless it's the next state of power in the sovereign nation. England is the equivalent of a state in Mexico or the U.S. or a province in Canada. Basically the place of birth for the infobox should be city, state/province/territory/country within sovereign nation, soverign nation. Why is Wiltshire explicitly mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for closing. Wow, that one only took nearly 3 months. That's Jeremy decided (for a while?) What happened to the Template talk:Infobox officeholder RfC idea? We just struggle on UK-article-by-UK-article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New Yorker article
A huge article covering Corbyn has just been released by The New Yorker. Some of the information is already on here, but it provides a good source for some that is not. I'm not particularly good at knowing what is and isn't relevant on wiki articles about living persons (or dead ones for that matter), so I'll link it here so someone who knows more about what they're doing can have a look. Cheers article Nbdelboy (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an MOS:OPED written by a not WP:NOTABLE person, Sam Knight - journalist Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that really matter? It's more about the content in of itself that could maybe be added to the page Nbdelboy (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New image
Unfortunately, during Barack Obama's visit to the UK, only one 'free' image of him meeting Jeremy was taken and from a poor angle..but I came across this taken 3 days later by another user on flickr and vote that we use this as his wiki image..Its of Higher quality and much more focused and his best image yet.....-- Stemoc 09:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he's looking off to the side again, but I agree, an improvement. I think I'd prefer a less tight crop from the original but I'm happy for this version to replace whatever is currently in the infobox. JMiall  ₰  19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the existing Trident Rally photo, as it captures Corbyn well, but I agree it is a little out of focus. This natural slightly goofy photo is better than the weirdly coloured one, which briefly appeared on the page again today ...ignoring the *!--Discuss on talk page before changing--* and the discussion here. --  BOD --  22:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The tightness allows Corbyn to be in focus instead of the random people in the background and i think his 'goofy' appearance makes him look real unlike those fake oranges and blobfish looking american presidential candidates we have..I don't like the current image in the infobox, mainly because its more of a screenshot than an actual picture (.png not jpg) which means his facial colour is way-off ...looks worse than that 'off-colour' image we had before this lol..its ok he is looking away from the camera, try finding a Donald TRUMP pic of him looking at the camera and thinking "this is a good shot" lol..-- Stemoc 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti trident supporters will prefer the photo connected to that but the Junior Doctors' Strike picture is a lot better, added it. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment With the above RfC done and dusted perhaps it is time for a comprehensive RfC on which image to use, setting out all the options? AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that a sneer, or a smirk, or maybe just the start of a winning smile? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (I'm discussing the picture here)
 * The choice of pic has nothing to do with whether any (unknown) editor supports trident or junior doctors Govindaharihari. The pic was changed once again without respect the discussion here. It is a shame that the picture which had been changed back, was then unilaterally changed a second time today by the very same editor who actually told the first changer to respect discussions here. I am strongly minded to change pic back to the one associated with the Trident Rally but I wish to avoid an edit war. I support AusLondonder's suggestion of an RFc. --  BOD --  22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely an improvement, having a photo that focuses on a single political issue such as trident is a wp:npov issue in itself. With this pic you don't even need to comment as to where it was taken, it is just a recent headshot. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the pic was taken at X or Y event is irrelevant. The junior doctors strike pic (which relates to a single political issue as much as the Trident pic) could be equally wp:npov by your own argument. The 'trident' pic is also a recent head shot (from the front). What we need is an agreed suitable pic that conveys the subject well, the 'trident' pic does that better. --  BOD --  22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, this head-shot is much bettor. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We are looking for a neutral photo - a head-shot - with no promotional focus - head shot of Jeremy Corbyn, without focus on a fringe policy or whatever people are focused on Govindaharihari (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are you to unilaterally decide whether one pic is better than another, without letting the discussion continue here. Who are you to label something as fringe or not, no doubt based on your own political views, I doubt whether Mr Corbyn would consider the supporting the NHS junior doctors or Trident a fringe policy. What gave you the right to unilaterally change the pic? --  BOD --  23:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think that some would perceive the current pic as somewhat of a mugshot AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I again suggest an RfC is needed. This is a long-running problem here. We need to look at the best pictures contained in the Jeremy Corbyn Commons category and choose one that will be used here at at election articles infoboxes (such as Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I second this proposal, how do we set one up. -- BOD --  10:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. The process is explained at WP:RFC.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible wording? Request for comment: Considering all options available at Jeremy Corbyn Commons category which picture should be used in the infobox in the Lead? {*{rfc|bio|pol}*} -- BOD --  13:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is so yawn, let it go, the pic is ok, move on, stop wasting your own time and others as well. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * my mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, what's it got to do with Wales anyway? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * just asking Govindaharihari (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, so... You're asking what Jeremy Corbyn has to do with Wales? Or you're asking what my interest in one Wikipedia article has to do with my interest in another? Or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering what the interest was for welsh nationalists in slagging off Jeremy Corbyn - the photo is OK, just move along, a RFC is worthless a waste of everyone's time Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You think I'm a "welsh nationalist" and/or that I'm "slagging off Jeremy"? Just wow. But it seems like the forthcoming RfC may certainly be a waste for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the forthcoming RfC may certainly be a waste of everyone's time Govindaharihari (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Particularly yours, I think. I can always get a few more nationalist slaggings-off in, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All nationalists make me puke they do nothing but create wars and division. A picture of Jeremy, I don't see an issue, its ok Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently you don't. But I'm not seeing huge support for your view here. Those Cumbrian nationalists are just the worst, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Main image should be changed
It just makes him look really old and ugly. (217.42.27.128 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Changed to which image? The is a 'Request for Comments' just above your comment/new section, that offers available choices & simply asks which image of Corbyn wikipedia should use. Please respond there. -- BOD --  19:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Growth in the Labour Party
The second paragraph is not relevant to the section on "Labour Party Membership" and as it is simply out of date it should be removed. -- BOD --  21:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The figures on "Labour Party Membership" are also out of date (it's reportedly falling again ) but are still valid as an illustration of initial reactions to Corbyn's election amongst some people. Similarly, early opinion polls are also relevant (particularly when the figure is a noteworthy "lowest in history" milestone). It is important to include figures on reaction of the wider public to produce a well rounded account of reactions to Corbyn: anybody unfamiliar with the subject might otherwise conclude from the article that Corbyn is the most widely-loved political figure in British political history, which is obviously isn't the case.
 * Loading the article with positive statistics about reaction to Corbyn (including opinion polls of his own party) and purging it of any statistics unfavourable to Corbyn is a serious POV and WEIGHT issue. Dtellett (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this article is on a WP:1RR restriction, I suggest you self-revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Actually, I think the information would be more relevant in the section above, in the context of recently added material on opinion polls (currently of the Labour party only). Would you agree it is - with appropriate copyediting for text flow - more relevant there? Dtellett (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would/is better placed there, rather than a section on party membership (the growth of which probably has plateaued). -- BOD --  15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

English republicans
There is a category called English Republicans   -  should not Jeremy Corbyn be added to this category?Vorbee (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is already in the British republicans category, which I feel better suits his identity and role. AusLondonder (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to address this problem to no avail. Maybe we should just do away with the republican categories entirely. JJARichardson (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

no confidence motion
This motion is significant in the context of Corbyn's career and biography (as the first such move from his own Parliamentary party) and is properly sourced. Whether or not it will prove to have consequences, it is is still appropriate to be be signalled in the article.--Smerus (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Too early, motion only tabled, was too biased. -- BOD --  11:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * what does 'too early' mean - and what WP standards are supposedly broached here? This is a news item relevant to the bio and was supported by citations from the Guardian and the BBC, giving both points of view. Why is is being suppressed? --Smerus (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's almost unheard of that a party leader is facing calls to resign after only a few months. Even Iain Duncan Smith had been leading his party for more than a year before there were serious calls for him to resign. (213.122.144.4 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC))

"Tabled" in the UK does not mean "indefinitely defer" (the US usage), and this is now getting appreciable play in all the UK media. It means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting". As he is not PM, this is not on the same level as a motion in Parliament. It is neither a "contentious claim" at this point, nor is it in any way defamatory of Corbyn. It is a fairly unusual event in UK political history. Redaction here is silly. Collect (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)