Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn

The electability of Jeremy Corbyn as the UK's Prime Minister section
I believe this section ought to be removed as it is not objective and entirely based on biased crystal ball opinions. Of course political opposition commentators will play down his chances of winning. The small minority opinion of Mandleson is mentioned, ignoring the 60% of the Labour Party who clearly do believe he could be P.M. This opening section is not encylopedic. -- BOD --  17:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, I have removed it. It is not suitable for this article in any case, as it is not a "political position of Jeremy Corbyn" AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Differentiation
It seems to me that the article should differentiate, much more clearly than it does now, between, firstly, the positions he held as a backbencher prior to 2015 (when he was not holding any major office, and probably didn't expect that he would); secondly, the policies and issues he campaigned on for the leadership; and, thirdly, the positions he has stated since becoming leader - both his own personal views, and the views he has expressed on behalf of the whole party (which may not necessarily coincide with his personal views). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At this stage it's unclear which, if any of his views have changed (except maybe this one from forty years ago ), and I don't think he's [yet] expressed any views on behalf of his party he doesn't personally believe in. We should only structure [parts of] the article around the idea that his views might have evolved, changed or not been fully expressed if and when reliable sources attest that it's the case; it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to be doing any original analysis of the timing of his statements and the relationship they might have had to his role. I'm sure that over time he will end up articulating proposals which are described by reliable third party sources as a "compromise", especially in areas like defence (I'm going to update the position on Trident), but we can only start doing that if and when differences in his positions are acknowledged by reliable sources (preferably multiple reliable sources, and not in "attack article" form). Dtellett (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me put it another way. Some of his statements in the article are given dates; others are not.  It would be a great deal clearer if statements he made in, say, 1985, were differentiated from those he made in 2015 - by, at least, providing the year in which a statement was made.  It is up to the reader then to infer the likelihood of his views on anything having shifted, given the number of years since then.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
 * OK, that's different from the expansion of the article I thought you were asking for. I think pretty much everything in the current article that's not dated (or attributed as a response to a particular event, vote or time-bound issue) in the article is from the 2015 leadership campaign, but it would certainly help to clarify that as he inevitably will end up having to formulate new policies in future. 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Dtellett (talk)
 * I agree that the article should add dates but I don't think any major reorganisation has to happen. Although, apart from his position on the EU (and even then, that's not as clear-cut as it seems), I can't seem to find any major discrepancies. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should differentiate between the past and present. For example this was his position on cannabis in 2000, but does he hold the same views fifteen years on from then? This is Paul (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does: his views are mentioned in the article as it stands, but I added the Early Day Motion from that version. But if there are any discrepancies – such as the EU debate – then the dates definitely should be added, as they are in the "European Union" section. Although ideally, I too think it'd be better if all the dates were mentioned. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Scottish referendum and Dugdale
Jesus, you don't even have the shame or guile to hide your agenda do you? As explained in previous edit summaries, this page is not to explain what other people think about the issues, or to highlight Corbyn's alleged "gaffes". The point of political reporting is to miss all nuance and to loudly declare "major splits" when the "beleaguered" foreign secretary says "we could do X" or "we will do Y by May this year" while the "under fire" defence secretary says "we should do X" or "we will do Y by June this year" respectively. By contrast, this is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Your obsession with editing articles in this fashion, relying on transposing political commentary of the sort you happen to agree with into the pages of people you dislike is, frankly, utterly tedious. Your latest wording is also misleading, in that it could be read as saying not just that Dugdale is not in favour of a second referendum and would argue in Scotland against holding one (which is true) but that she thinks Westminster should block one even if Holyrood agrees to it regardless of Scottish Labour opposition. This is not the case.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, it's not even clear it's fair to categorise this as one of his political "positions" and hence that it needs to be here at all. It was an off-the-cuff and slightly muddled answer to a direct question that was seized on and overinterpreted in the usual media frenzy, but whose basic point, FWIW, was consistent with Labour policy and Dugdale's own position. As stated later:
 * A spokesman for Mr Corbyn later told the BBC: "Jeremy reaffirmed our position today that if the Scottish Parliament votes for a referendum, it would be wrong for Westminster to block it. Labour continues to oppose a further referendum in the Scottish Parliament and would campaign against independence if one were held."
 * That seems to clear up any confusion.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, put the best possible gloss on Corbyn, regardless as to the evidence of his leadership of Labour being an "unmitigated disaster". You know full well that articles are supposed to reflect all opinions in RS about a subject. Much of the content of this article is controversial, including among the 80% of the PLP who wanted rid of him last year. Only non-RS, which we cannot use, like the wretched RT try to pretend he is credible. No doubt the one exception would be Seumas Milne, if he had not had an unfortunate career change. Corbyn's other main media backers, the usually very credible Owen Jones and George Monbiot, have dumped him. Naturally, this kind of development would be suppressed if I attempted to add it any of the Corbyn-related articles.


 * The later supposed clean up from Corbyn's spokesman on the second Scottish referendum would not have been necessary if Corbyn was other than incompetent. As on so many issues around Corbyn, Wikipedia is ignoring the serious downside explained in probably thousands of RS articles by now. The polling of the public, Labour voters, and more recently, Labour Party members demonstrate the ongoing "unmitigated disaster". Still, at least adding this information to the main Corbyn article has not proved too much for Corbyn's defenders. So far. Philip Cross (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No one else is talking about putting the "best possible gloss on Corbyn", or indeed any kind of gloss. Other than you of course, who, as this latest screed reaffirms, wants the worst possible gloss put on him and anyone else you don't like. The aim of an encyclopedia is not to try to prove and affirm what random WP editors or even random newspaper columnists happen to think, or to cover trivial and confected media "controversies", but to adduce objectively verifiable and pertinent factual information. In this case, that means to simply explain what his affirmed position is on Scotland and Scottish independence referendums. Not to second guess what a slightly unclear answer may mean, to set out what other Labour politicians think, or to score political points on the back of a supposed massive gulf between the two based on Sunday newspaper hyperbole.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you have been reading comments about myself by one of Vladimir Putin's RT pets. The overwhelming majority of my edits are to articles on subjects about which I am not an antagonist. There is no reason to think history will show Corbyn in a better light than the contemporary media, whatever you think about media organisations other than Putin's propaganda channel. One hopes, the Wikipedia community will then start editing the Corbyn articles sensibly. The current approach is to turn them into an advert in his favour which is not neutral. Philip Cross (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703142859/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618164047/http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/labour-mps-switch-andy-burnham-9433599 to http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/labour-mps-switch-andy-burnham-9433599

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

corbynism
Where is the chat for this? There is no such thing as corbynism, what the f is this? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * His policies have been called Corbynism so I dont see any harm in mentioning they have been called that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * His policies have been called Corbynism, but the phrase doesn't have the same recognition value as Thatcherism or Blairism. He'd need to win a string of elections for that to happen, and it's unclear at present whether he can actually win any. This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True but it has been called that by multiple reliable sources.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Apollo The Logician get lost - there is no common usage of the phrase Corbynism. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * who saiD common? It is used in RSs which is what matters.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * we are not here to promote low notable commentry, Its embarrasing, get lost Govindaharihari (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been used a fair amount.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No it hasnt - corbyn is a left wing socialist, his political position is nothing personal and is not being reported as such either. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have to bite my toungue on this one. lol, Corbynism is well known, only joking lol Tristram Hunt has become one of the latest Labour MPs calling for Jeremy Corbyn's removal lol Angela Eagle warned Mr Corbyn she will 'resolve' the crisis if he 'doesn't take action' lol what a pile of crap links Govindaharihari (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism and Holocaust denial
AusLondonder, why do you think that his views on Israel, the Jews and alleged Holocaust deniers are not related to his political positions. This seems pretty relevant to me (not to mention reported as some kind of "scandal" by reliable sources), maybe you could suggest a trimming down of the material?--Arielle JS A (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be too thorough on specific incidents but not too long. Combined, it it is one of the main political positions involving Corbyn to have been the subject of media interest in the last two years, along with the EU membership referendum/Brexit, renewal of the nuclear deterrent and (potential) British military action in Syria. I would suggest an article created on the issue of "Allegations of Antisemitism and the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn" if past experience (see the archive talk pages for the main Corbyn article) did suggest this issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved here. Philip Cross (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, this has been covered extensively in the media. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily support or oppose this section, I feel that there are too many quotes, especially when the Corbyn criticised by Home Affairs Select Committee on Anti-semitism section is exclusively sourced to a primary source (a PDF from the select committee), which makes me feel that the quotes used could have been selectively chosen - without coverage in secondary, RS's.  Seagull123  Φ  23:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that he himself holds any kind of anti semitic or Holocaust denying views? If not then the title would appear to me to be implying that he does, which is somewhat dubious from a NPOV perspective. Also to balance it out he does have some Jewish supporters such as Jews for Jeremy and he has also had vocal support from the Jewish Socialists' Group. Should this not be included to balance things out? G-13114 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as it's not UNDUE. Some more refs here showing Jewish support/opposition for JC: Haaretz.com, Haaretz.com (again), Forward.com, Times of Israel - so I don't think it is undue to talk about his Jewish support in this section. Also, I share your concerns about the section title, maybe just "Judaism" or something related, which can't have any problems with NPOV?  Seagull123  Φ  16:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also adding undue section to this section per mine and G-13114's comments above, please discuss this issue here. I've already added the primary sources tag to one of the subsections.  Seagull123  Φ  16:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it now, but we can add content from this secondary source later. I'm not really sure what you mean about adding content showing Jewish support for Corbyn, it's not a section on whether Jews in general support him. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly related: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * to clarify my point, I mean that if there is a section all about linking him to antisemitism, there should be a mention of how he does have support from Jews and the Jewish community (in whatever amount that is), and not just a questionably sourced section about his links to antisemitism. And more generally, I have just removed an unsourced sentence talking about Livingstone and Sinn Fein, which has nothing to do with antisemitism (so shouldn't be in that section), and had no sources (shouldn't be on a BLP page) - so I am still concerned about the lack of sourcing for this section.  Seagull123  Φ  13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this follows, how is Corbyn having support from Jews relevant to whether he is linked to antisemitism or not? We wouldn't expect to have allegations of racism against Donald Trump followed by content about how some people of Mexican origin support him. I have added sources for the Naz Shah/Livingstone content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the Holocaust denial bit from the section title, as there is no evidence he holds such views, and it could be seen as an attempted smear to associate him with that. I also made other changes to try and improve the balance. G-13114 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * they are only allegations of anti-semitism, as far as I can see; and if there is a significant proportion of the Jewish population (whether a minority or majority) who support him and don't see him as antisemitic, then these views should be included. And the section header was "Anti-semitism and Holocaust denial" until about the 24th - which doesn't show them as allegations.  Seagull123  Φ  16:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I still don't really see how there being a proportion of Jews who support Corbyn is noteworthy in this context. Perhaps someone else can weigh in here as we seem to be going in circles. Thank you G-13114 for changing the section header. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To try and clarify, only saying there are allegations of antisemitism makes it seem like he has no support from Jews, which is incorrect, so saying he has some support from Jews (however big) shows that that he does have some support, regardless of the allegations.  Seagull123  Φ  19:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it follows that because there are accusations of him being linked to antisemitism, means that he wouldn't be supported by at least some Jews? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Positions on Castro/Cuba and Hugo Chavez/Venezuela
Nothing about these? It's widely reported that he supported or sympathized with both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I'd like to add it myself but basically I feel that you have to be a Wiki-lawyer to write on a controversial subject, and I'm not one. Ttulinsky 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)
 * This is already covered in the article, see the section "Venezuala and Cuba". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

this article is called...
Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn - Corben's Political positions are not anti semetic or holocaust denying, can whoever is attempting to protray that they are please stop it. thanks 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs)


 * The section fails WP:WEASEL. We don't know who are making these accusations.  While anti-Semites often re-package their position as anti-Zionism, some partisans accuse anyone criticizing Likud policies of anti-Semitism.  Fortunately a distinction can be found in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the above poster. I don't think this section belongs on this article. As this page is about his political views and positions, the question is, does he advocate or ever has advocated any anti-semitic political positions?.....No. Is there any evidence that he holds or has ever held any anti-semitic views?......No. The only substance here is that he has associated with people who have held allegedly anti-semitic views. But that is really beyond the scope of this article. I would argue for this to be removed from here, and possibly covered elsewhere. G-13114 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, the content fails wp:weasel and wp:coatrack - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the above that this isn't "political positions of Jeremy Corbyn", therefore, this content has no place in this article and would also add that it is WP:SYNTHESIS too. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above, definitely not on an article about his political positions, but maybe on his own article if the sourcing issues are sorted out.  Seagull123  Φ  17:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agree with the above, here is not the place for this information. This is Paul (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Things like Corbyn's statements on things like Chakrabati report aren't outside the scope of the article, though many parts of the removed material were (and it was also obviously partisan) Dtellett (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's what he's said about something, then yes, those are his political positions, so should be included, per the normal requirements that they've been covered in RS's.  Seagull123  Φ  21:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo war
Re: this edit.

The main secondary souce says:

More recently, critical bloggers and journalists have taken him to task for having once apparently dismissed Serbian war crimes in Kosovo as a fabrication.

''Back in 2004, Corbyn, ..... signed a parliamentary motion that praised an article by leftist journalist John Pilger “reminding readers of the devastating human cost of the so-termed ‘humanitarian’ invasion of Kosovo, led by NATO and the United States in the Spring of 1999, without any sanction of the United Nations Security Council [and] congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a ‘genocide’ that never really existed in Kosovo”.''

I'm no friend of either Corbyn or Pilger, but it is clear from this source (even more so in the primary source, the EDM itself) that the main drift of the early day motion (fraudulent justifications for intervening) was that the case for war had been exaggerated/fabricated by the US/NATO and that there was no UN support. Omitting "critical bloggers and journalists have taken him to task for having once apparently dismissed Serbian war crimes ..as a fabrication and rendering it as which dismissed as a 'fabrication' the claim that war crimes committed by Serbia ... amounted to genocide is synth IMO.

My wording may be flawed, but it is an attempt to remain concise, but give some context. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I find the text misleading. Early day motion 392 questioned "David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, [who said] that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed."  In fact, Balkan Insight, which is used as the source of the criticism, says that "8,661 Kosovo Albanian civilians were killed or disappeared."  Furthermore, the UN determined it was not a genocide.  The text equates Corbyn with holocaust deniars when in fact he based his position on accurate information.  TFD (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, do you mean present text is misleading? Previous was "Corbyn opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and in 2004 signed an Early Day motion which dismissed as a 'fabrication' the claim that war crimes committed by Serbia in the Kosovo War amounted to genocide". ..... I think that the previous implied 'denialism', especially when linked in that way, and is a bit 'synthy'. Pincrete (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "in fact he based his position on accurate information"  ..... Mmmm? Well certainly Pilger/JC others were right that the estimates/guesses of those killed were proven to be huge over-estimates, they were both unquestionably right that there was no UN approval. They were right that there was no genocide (though it is unclear as to whether it was Pilger or US/NATO that used the term first, if Pilger, it's a bit of a strawman) ... the court you quote said " there had been a "systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments". Crimes against humanity and war crimes did take place but "the exactions committed by Milosevic's regime cannot be qualified as criminal acts of genocide, since their purpose was not the destruction of the Albanian ethnic group... but its forceful departure from Kosovo", so no genocide, simply terror, rape, murder, arson etc + forceful departure!


 * In fact JC's position goes to the heart of the whole legality/morality issue, and whilst I would not wish to present him as a 'denier' neither would I wish him to presented as 'correct'. JC took a position on a complex moral and legal issue, the rights/wrongs of it probably need to be addressed in other articles.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Current wording seems straightforward and factual to me, without trying to imply any truth or lack thereof to the EDM Corbyn signed. As for whether it constitutes denialism or not, the actual Pilger article praised in the EDM contains some facts regarding body counts and rulings that specific commanders weren't guilty of genocide, but is overall a pretty grotesque piece of denialism that pretends a million people didn't flee to avoid expected massacres in order to make the false claim the war was really all about getting Milosevic to "surrender sovereignty" to the "empire". But that's Pilger's writing, not Corbyn's, and I don't think Wikipedia is the place for original commentary on the extent to which he agreed with it Dtellett (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not watching, so please ping if needed. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Syria
Hi, recently, an IP editor (146.90.87.134) added to the Syria section of this page about criticism of Corbyn and StWC's position on this subject, saying "added open-letter criticism of his position on Syria". I then reverted this saying, "I believe that consensus on the talk page is that we don't include criticism of Corbyn, as this page is about his political positions (see "this article is called..." section)", following which the IP reverted me saying "because Corbyns views on Syria are nicely encapsulated in this open letter to him: and is RS that his views are directly criticised by antiWar folk".

I would like to invite both the IP involved and other editors to discuss whether this should be included. My belief is that it shouldn't, because, I believe that consensus is that we don't include criticism of Corbyn, as this page is about his political views (for example, the section). This could be included at his own article, but I believe it shouldn't be here - as it is not what the page is about.  Seagull123  Φ  22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As an update to anyone, Tanbircdq has now reverted the IP.  Seagull123  Φ  21:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I put in the Syrian section reverted above. It seems to me that Corbyn's full views and actions on Syria have not been shown here. Sometimes the clarity of critical statement can help make obvious the views of the person being criticised: so long as the critical statement is measured - in this case the open letter as from people on the same side of the anti-war fence as Corbyn, and was measured.  However it seems that folk here didn't take that view - so twice now my input was reverted.  So today I took another tack, added more details on Corbyns own words and (in)-actions on Syria.CanterburyUK (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some trigger-happy reverters here. Tanbircdq, you have reverted the section I added that was, as I wrote above 'added more details on Corbyns own words and (in)-actions on Syria'


 * Your edit summary said: "Large sections of quotes not appropriate and content needs secondary sources".


 * Could you comment here, and give reasons why you believe those claims make sense. Ie
 * # which quotes can be dropped
 * # why do you feel that the provision of Corbyn's own words as spoken in Parliament and recorded in the Parliamentary formal records is not sufficient, but that secondary sources are needed too!CanterburyUK (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The risk is the article becomes a coatrack for expressing the views of opponents. Certainly there are many people who support bombing Syria and hold positions different from Corbyn.  But we don't want the article to spend half its space presenting them.  TFD (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Familiarising yourself with WP:PSTS, will help you understand my point. It's WP:UNDUE to cherrypick one large quote from a primary source (which holds millions of verbatim quotes over decades) to push a point of view and (as The Four Deuces has said) turn the page into a WP:COATRACK of other people's views rather than the subjects. If his views on Syria are notable then we'd expect it to have received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources|reliable secondary sources. The current community consensus currently appears to be that the content isn't appropriate to be included so as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD it should be removed until proven otherwise. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tanbircdq, thanks for responding and for highlighting PSTS/ RS /UNDUE/ COATRACK.
 * But I wonder if you have yourself not applied them? You have to date chosen to NOT revert the section on April 2017: even though that paragraph is very weak on RS - just one source which seems to be merely as valid as an individual blog.


 * In contrast, the section I added that you reverted, contained a large number of sources - many RS.


 * So could we two agree on this perhaps, to make things easier going forward:
 * Corbyn does have views on Syria - and they are wider than merely being against the April 2017 US bombing campaign
 * his views are 'notable' because they have generated discussion online, and serious, reputable people have interupted his speeches: or written open-letters to him with many signatures.
 * so it is correct that we aim to capture his views on Syria here


 * If you're happy with that - then lets try to get it right here - lets share the work of finding good sources and etc.  CanterburyUK (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Notability" relates to whether or not there is sufficient material for a separate article, you mean "noteworthy." Discussions on-line, interruptions to speeches or letters have no bearing on noteworthiness, only coverage of the controversy in reliable secondary sources does.  TFD (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant noteworthy.


 * CanterburyUK, are you now applying the same logic of the open letter about Corbyn's failure to do something as my failure to remove poorly sourced content (which I wasn't aware of) is a failure of adhering to Wikipedia rules and guidelines? However, now that you've made me aware of it, I've replaced the source with a reliable one. I'm not seeing any reliable secondary sources in the content that you are intending to add though. RS are The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, The Washington Times. After reviewing everything in the article it would appear that everything else in the article is balanced and well-sourced except this content you want to add. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK TFD  and Tanbircdq - I guess there is a fundamental question: do you feel the Syria section already fully and accurately encompasses Corbyn's positions?  If not, what issues do you think ought to be added.
 * Other Questions
 * 2) - are either of you guys willing to do the work to add it?
 * 3) - regards sources, would one of you be willing to work out what percentage of the entire page fails to meet your criteria for sources.


 * 4) question for you tanbircdq - why did you criticise above my use of quoting Corbyn's words from Hansard - when you yourself have also quoted from hansard too in this very page! (albeit you cherry picked one short quote rather than my large one)  (above, you wrote: "It's WP:UNDUE to cherrypick one large quote from a primary source (which holds millions of verbatim quotes over decades) to push a point of view")


 * so: Tanbircqd you have reverted (yet again) the new content, but failed to address the questions here on sources quality.  You appear to be using a criteria for source quality that is NOT used across this page, as justification for repeated reverting.   PLease do engage with the questions above.CanterburyUK (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Syria section previously appeared to encompass Corbyn's position according to what is noteworthy enough to receive coverage in secondary sources. If it's not full and accurate then please feel free to find more independent, reliable, secondary sources about "Corbyn's political positions" in order to expand this section. If you're unable to do so, that may answer your question.


 * Yes, I've found and added another political position" again sources from The Independent in that section here. Are you able to find sources of this standard like all the other content within the rest of the article appears to have, bar the content that you are proposing to add?


 * As I've previously said everything else appears to be well-sourced from RS such as The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph etc. Correct me with specific examples if you feel that I'm wrong. You are welcome to state specifically what you mean, add RS in support of this or be bold in removing this content also. Tanbircdq (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tanbircdq, thanks for responding.  For the sake of clarity and easy reading for those who will come after us, is this a correct summary of your response to the 4 questions:


 * 1)do you feel the Syria section already fully and accurately encompasses Corbyn's positions? ANSWER: yes,you did feel that section was complete - back when it mentioned only Corbyn's responses in April 2017


 * 2) are either of you guys willing to do the work to add (needed new content)? ANSWER: Yes, you have already added some new content.


 * 3) regards sources, would one of you be willing to work out what percentage of the entire page fails to meet your criteria for sources? ANSWER: none given


 * 4) why did you criticise above my use of quoting Corbyn's words from Hansard - when you yourself have also quoted from hansard too in this very page? ANSWER: not answered here, nor in Syria section above where I have asked it again.


 * As the song goes, '2 out of 3 ain't bad':  or in this case 2 out of 4! Would you be willing to answer (4) over in the Syria section: and answer (3) here?  I feel (3) is important because some may feel that a new barrier of 'strict rule enforcement' and reverting is happening which has the effect of leaving the older content, that does not meet the rules, in a privileged, protected position.  Ossifying the page in effect: to the advantage of those who agreed with what was already on the page and wanted to keep out new and (to them) disagreeable content.   My view, which may be wrong, is that if we can clarify this that more helpers to the page will return, seeing that there is less reverting going on CanterburyUK (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've already said that posting a comment on the talk page doesn't give you licence to restore content which other editors have reverted, that's not how WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN or WP:CONSENSUS works. You have been bold in adding the content, this has been reverted so the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (you) by gaining consensus on the talk page. The older long-standing version should remain until consensus is formed to include the content that you're proposing to add. I did ask you to self-revert before the matter is taken to WP:ANI as you appear to have edit warred the content onto the article against community consensus you failed to do so, so this matter has been taken to ANI now. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tanbircdq so you took the matter to ANI. Judging by the current state of the Syria section, after several people have added new content not just me,  it is now a more thorough coverage, which is good for anyone reading.  I wouldn't claim that all my initial additions were adequately sourced or adequately phrased:  but alot of those themes are in the page now, and others have helped mould them.  So overall, my input was good for Wiki.
 * For your part, I guess the question is whether your actions had been less orientated around removing content and more around working collaboratively with occassional editors like myself: whether we could have got to the current 'new improved' Syria section with less to-ing and fro-ing and distraction about the wiki politics. This is the difference between the page before and what it is now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=795703617&oldid=793301236 CanterburyUK (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Debate: criticism of Corbyn to be avoided?
Seagull123 above under 'Syria' states that "I believe that consensus on the talk page is that we don't include criticism of Corbyn, as this page is about his political positions (see "this article is called..." section)".

Whilst I agree that the page as currently titled should not become mostly criticism of his views - it seems illogical to blanket exclude criticism. For the reasons I gave above: criticism of a stated view can sometimes bring clarity and detail to what the person's view : in the world of politics 'weasel words' can often be used to make a sound-bite apparently supporting one interpretation of the person's position, when in reality hiding the person's genuine position as evidenced only by reviewing the person's statements over time and their actions in that area:   do their actions support their words? Or in-actions.

So a statement of criticism can act as a RS: by pulling together the longer term position of the criticised person.

If we here disallow that - then you are forcing us to break Wiki rules by doing OR, if we wish to show the true position by the work of ourselves piecing longer-term statements/actions/inactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Some responses to his views - including critical ones - might be appropriate on this page (more so than the biography since the purpose of this article is to allow for more detailed coverage of political positions) but unsupported claims that he was opposed to something because of his inaction and an extended statement from Peter Tatchell asking him to do more on a particular issue probably aren't. Dtellett (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dtellett. can you spell out your reasoning:
 * * 'unsupported claims that he was opposed to something because of his inaction' - how could this section be improved? When a person does not take a course of action  that others are requesting, then are they not by definition against that action?
 * 'an extended statement from Peter Tatchell asking him to do more' - in fact in an earlier addition of mine that was also reverted firstly by Seagull123 then by Tanbircdq. That section included an open letter from scores of people! Not just Peter Tatchell.


 * That open letter was an excellent RS at pulling together the wider picture of Corbyn's views/actions on Syria into one document - I hope it can be put back in at some point, and this time you, Tanbircdq and Seagull123 will be happy enough not to revert it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * CanterburyUK, what you are describing appears to be WP:SYNTH of content which isn't permissible either.


 * Peter Tatchell and anyone else leading protests to disrupt Corbyn's speech are their views and have nothing to do with Corbyn's views. A load of people told Corbyn that he should do something that he wasn't doing isn't a "political postion". Include Corbyn's own views that are supported by coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Not other people's view on Corbyn's views, other people's views on subjects on their pages, if they're notable enough to have an article. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Using Occam's razor, this page is called "Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn". If a page called "Criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn" is created, then editors are free to add this content so long as it's supported by RS. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the content and as per WP:BURDEN "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" until consensus changes to include it is reached. Other editors are welcome to remove any other contentious content. I'm not sure how many different experienced editors are going to repeat that the content being added isn't appropriate due to either it's nature, sources or both before you accept it! Tanbircdq (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * SO: Tanbirdq you have again reverted the new content, saying that the reason is the source used - but you have used the exact same source yourself in this very page! Please can you comment on this, at first glance people might view this as hypocritical and merely an artifice to silence views you disagree with.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=794727212)
 * Also, please do address the questions in Talk under Syria.
 * Edited 10th August to show, as requested by AbsolutelyPureMilk  the edit where Tanbircdq had used the same source that they later criticised the use of. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=783201055&oldid=783020524.  CanterburyUK (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The allegations that my failure to remove poorly sourced content is somehow my tacit support for it, doesn't appear to be in the spirit of WP:AGF. I have already clearly explained that I wasn't aware that the "April 2017 content" was poorly sourced so I didn't remove it but upon being aware of it, I replaced that Leak of Nations source with an RS from The Independent here. Also, regarding the accusation of editorial hypocrisy, please be aware of WP:CIVIL and that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND.


 * Finally, posting a comment on the talk page doesn't give you licence to restore content which other editors have reverted, that's not how WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN or WP:CONSENSUS works. I suggest you self-revert before the matter is taken to WP:ANI as you appear to be engaging in at WP:EDITWAR with multiple editors (User:Dtellett, User:Seagull123, User:Govindaharihari). Tanbircdq (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tanbircdq - I;m sure we can quickly round this off and get back to the main job of trying to improve this page and especially the confusing duplication of content with the main JC page.


 * Meanwhile, you didn't respond to the question asked.


 * "Please can you comment on this, at first glance people might view this as hypocritical and merely an artifice to silence views you disagree with." CanterburyUK (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying this. a) My addition of "In July 1998, Corbyn endorsed the Good Friday Agreement by voting for the Northern Ireland Bill saying: "We look forward to peace, hope and reconciliation in Ireland in the future" wasn't "cherrypicked" as it clearly explains his stance on the Good Friday Agreement i.e it is a fact that he "endorsed the Good Friday Agreement by voting for the Northern Ireland Bill" and his quote merely serves to further summarise his position on this. b) It isn't there "to push a point of view" as isn't a partisan or non-partisan in nature. c) It's not "WP:UNDUE" either as like you say it's a short quote. In addition, as mentioned in the lead this directly relates to his "policies, views and voting record".


 * Yours on the other hand is a) "cherrypicked" because it's not really a "view" or "political postion" just a discussion questioning "making subjective judgements about who goes where to fight for what" (and I personally can't see what purpose it actually serves in the article nor how it improves the article). b) Is WP:UNDUE because it's the largest section within the article with no secondary sources to support it, the article is about his "political positions" not about his quotes. c) Yours also starts of with the libelous claim that "he defended fighters returning from Syria..." (I don't see anything supporting that within the quote) which appears to be designed to "push a point of view". In addition, your doesn't "policies, views and voting record".


 * I hope that clarifies the chalk and cheese different between my use of Hansard and yours. If you accuse me of hypocrisy again I will further report you to ANI so administrators can decide whether you have fallen foul of WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this discussion, but to address the general points raised above, I would say that criticism in general shouldn't be added to this page, both due to the title of the article and the fact that basically everything he has said at one point has been criticised. However, I would say that reliable analysis of his actions (such as voting records or (in)action over certain events) could be included, similar to that at Bernie Sanders: Many commentators have noted the consistency of Sanders's views throughout his political career. or Based on Sanders's positions and votes throughout his political career, Noam Chomsky and Thomas Frank have described Sanders as "a New Dealer". If this is critical of him, then I still think it's OK to add, as it would be sourced and noteworthy. For example, recent criticism of Corbyn's inaction to criticise the government of Venezuela could be added, in my opinion, after a quote about him condemning all violence, "What I condemn is the violence that's been done by any side, by all sides, in all this", then talking about how he was criticised for not specifically condemning the government, "His remarks this week were followed by an avalanche of criticism in Britain's conservative news media." However, just one person (or a group of people) criticising him over one certain event, or one bit of inaction I would be wary of adding due to the above concerns.  Seagull123  Φ  13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Seagull123. thanks for sharing your personal view. Looks like weare in agreement: that criticism is NOT altogether forbidden here (which some have suggested). But that where, to better clarify JC's position, including criticism is helpful than it can be used: in which case sources showing 'reliable analysis' is needed. Does sound about the same as your position or have I misread it? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that criticism is out and out banned, however my opinion is that adding criticism just because there is criticism should't be done without a strong reason (others may disagree), and that "We don't like Corbyn's views" style criticism shouldn't be included (e.g. editorials), but the "Corbyn's view contradicts what he said before"/"Corbyn's view doesn't align with the facts" can be, so long as it is accompanied by what he has said/done on that topic, and is done by independent sources (so generally not the Mail/Telegraph - generally opposing him; and generally not the Mirror/Guardian, for opposite reasons - imo, both sides will try and support or oppose him, and neither will be fully neutral) such as the IFS/research bodies/such like. I also believe that anything larger than just "this policy/belief has been criticised by the IFS for not being workable" or whatever should probably be added to the main JC article. And this also goes for support for his policies, such as "this policy/view has been supported by the Mirror/John McDonnell/anyone else who may support him" - unless it's of the critical analysis type. Has this cleared up everything?  Seagull123  Φ  23:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Seagull123 "Has this cleared up everything?" - sorry, not really!  But that's OK, the prof of the pudding is in the eating: and I am heartened n the Syria section that we have shown a good model, no longer banning criticism point blank but still striving for the 'reliable analysis' sources.


 * It would be good to hear the views of others -I wonder, are you aware of any mechansim to see how many times a page in wiki has been viewed since a set date or version? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have looked around and don't see much criticism in "political positions of" pages: Political positions of John McCain, Political positions of Pat Buchanan, even Political positions of Adolf Hitler.  I still think it is coat-racking.  Say someone is "pro-choice" or whatever one calls it.  People will criticize them (positively and negatively) for holding that position, but they are really criticizing the position and readers don't want all that when they are looking to see what positions a person holds.  And note that these articles generally mention only where their positions are controversial.  No doubt Corbyn agrees with women voting, a fair legal system, the ban on burning soft coal in London, etc., but we don't mention it.  TFD (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD: You say 'don't see much criticism in "political positions of" pages' - That seems fine, as the points above is that criticism is mostly excluded like those other pages - but only used when it helps to make clear the persons views. So for example on Syria: never did any reliable source quote his saying 'I will not ask parliament for humanitarian drops':  nor does any RS or Hansard say 'he never did ask parliament': so we needed a way to show here that his view was indeed (according to his actions) not to have humanitarin drops:  and so criticism was useful here  because it crystalised that point:  reputable people asking for him to act makes it plain that he did not.
 * So all three of us here seem to agree on that, which is good.
 * "I still think it is coat-racking" - ah OK, that is where you seem to be taking it further - if you mean by this (maybe I mis-read it) that there should be a blanket ban? Or what other action did you propose?
 * And you wrote: "note that these articles generally mention only where their positions are controversial." Yes very true. That is really saying (it seems to me) the same thing as above but in a different way: that where JC says and does something that is transarent and clear and so reported clearly in RS: then no need to include criticism and those cases are uncontroversial.  But where his statements/actions/inaction are less clear cut, then voices of criticism can paint a fuller picture. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If no reliable sources have made an observation, then it is contrary to synthesis for us to do so. I fully agree that the media ignore important stories and overemphasize unimportant ones.  The problem is though that editors would also disagree on what they personally found important and have therefore agree to accept the emphasis in reliable sources.  They are of course free to participate in alternative wikis and other websites, but you would need to change policy if before making those changes to this article.  I take it you don't like Corbyn and want people to know the truth about him, but the purpose of articles here is to reflect what is reported in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD, we're both up late! (assuming you're close to UK timezone).
 * Could you answer my question to you above - are you proposing a blanket ban on coverage of criticism?
 * Your last comment suggests that you have a seperate 2nd concern, 'If no reliable sources have made an observation'. Which of the events currently in the Syria section do you feel fits that category - maybe we work together and google wider for RS?
 * Lastly, you wrote 'I take it you don't like Corbyn and want...' - may I ask you, would it be possible to leave personalities out of this and stick to the concerns on the tables? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Seagull123 I understand and agree with the point you made about "criticism should't be done without a strong reason... and is done by independent sources... unless it's of the critical analysis type". I'm wary to avoid of putting words in your mouth or misrepresent what your opinion is because it appears this may be happening here. But is the block quote in the section primarily sourced from Hansard a "noteworthy" improvement of the article? Is there anything there which are "political positions" of his "policies, views and voting record"? When referring to "just one person (or a group of people) criticising him over one certain event, or one bit of inaction I would be wary of adding due to the above concerns" would you agree with the Peter Thathell section not being appropriate because again it has nothing to do with his "political position, policies, views and voting record"? User:CanterburyUK. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding this quote, after reading the quote several times, what exactly has this quote actually got to do with the "political positions" of his "policies, views and voting record" here. Maybe User:Dtellett, User:Seagull123, User:Govindaharihari, User:The Four Deuces can raise some light here, if I'm missing anything here? Corbyn raised the issue about the "process of making subjective judgements" about Syrian fighters because of the "contradictions surrounding how we decide who is a good fighter and who is a terrorist; who is struggling for liberation and who is a terrorist" and "think about this rather more carefully and avoid the knee-jerk reaction of saying, "These are bad fighters and those are good fighters, so we will ban these and allow those in." I can't see anything in there where he's defending "fighters returning from Syria" either. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * TFD, I think you have hit the nail on the head htere. It appears that CanterburyUK, is taking an WP:IDHT approach and wants to WP:SYNTH the content. Some people made comments about Corbyn for failing to do something that they think he should do, so what appears to be proposed is to make this a large part of this article (coatracking).


 * It's interesting that you're asking to "leave personalities out of this" when you previously twice accused me of hypocrisy. I have reported you to ANI so administrators due to your conduct on this talk page in possible violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONAL as well various other issues. I have reported CanterburyUK to ANI so administrators due to your conduct on this talk page in possible violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONAL as well various other issues. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Could I suggest to all editors, including and  to refrain from adding/removing stuff from the Syria section until consensus is reached here, and to instead discuss here (apart from obvious BLP/copyvio violations etc - of course).  Seagull123  Φ  13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking more closely at the Syria section, it does seem that at the moment it seems that this section is mainly full of criticism of JC's position. Going through the section, in my opinion, the first JC quote is possibly too long, especially as it only has a primary source (Hansard). The Nov 2015 bit about the vote could be included, as it is about what he has done. The Through 2016 and later... bit to before the Apr 2017 US strike seems to me to be just criticism of him in the "We don't like JC/his views" style, which I don't believe should be included as, while the second blockquote focuses on what he hasn't done, it is saying "JC should have done this" which isn't, imo, his political positions. If someone were to critically analyse his views/actions on Syria, and conclude that he hasn't supported air drops or whatever, then, by all means raise here and then add. The sentence in the Apr 2017 US strike bit about being criticised by Labour figures should also, imo, not really be included, as hasn't everything he done been criticised by someone in Labour?  Seagull123  Φ  13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HI Seagull:, you write 'while the second blockquote focuses on what he hasn't done, it is saying "JC should have done this" which isn't, imo, his political positions.':  I guess the question is: why do you think there is an asymmetry between what someone does and what they do not do - in terms of revealing their political views?  I can't see that. Logically (IMHO) in both cases their political views are visible:  in one 'Fred is opposed to X' and in the other 'Fred has supported X'.
 * I guess you'd agree here, that as far as we can tell from Corbyn's actions he is opposed to humanitarian aid drops in Syria? Are we in agreement on that?
 * The specific difficulty here in Wikpedia on covering Corbyn's view: is the difficulty of the sources - many of the sources are criticism of him: and so even though it is from respected people, people of the left who agree with him on the majority of stuff - nevertheless the argument (as you make above):  is that criticism is in general to be avoided.  Which is true but slightly misses the point, thoses sources are not relevant because they are evidence of criticism:  but because they are evidence of Corbyn's political views. CanterburyUK (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * One day people will stop trying to use Wikipedia as a venue to thrash out political debates, and remember that it is meant to be an encyclopedia that simply explains what something is, not whether some third parties happen to have declared it "good" or "bad". As noted, this page is about explaining Corbyn's political positions, not about why some people who disagree with some of them them disagree.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi N-HH, and one day people on wikipedia will stop attributing motives to others, and stick to the issue! :)
 * The challenge here that I see is this: Corbyn does have a 'political view' on the merits of humanitarian aid drops to syria. And his view has informed his actions - which are that he has not used his profile in  parliament to lobby for them. And a number of people have challanged him on that - sensible,reputable people who are not his natural critics but on his side of the anti-war divide.


 * So wikipedia normally would cover this. But it seems that the sources that are available about this are not the normal RS. And that is partly because Corbyn's  has not publically ever stated transparently that he is opposed to humanitarian aid drops. So the sources are criticisms; which are on the whole to be avoided in this article.  So Wiki has a gap, and it is not easy to see how to fill it right now.


 * That's all it is - none of the above statements are in my mind controversial. But I'd welcome hearing from you if you think any specific ones are.  CanterburyUK (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough having every line here about his actual positions being followed by "but he has been criticised for this by ..." without adding criticisms of positions he hasn't taken that people think he should. The whole middle bit of the Syria section needs to be removed (and tbh other bits of the page need trimming too). I can't see you have much support for keeping it, so can we deal with it and close this now?  N-HH   talk / edits  17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * While what someone does may show their political positions, it requires anaylsis to determine this which, per policy, must be made in reliable sources (i.e., not even opinion pieces are acceptable) not by editors. If you don't like that policy, then get it changed.  TFD (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On 'Syria' Tanbircdq has flagged 'multiple issues'- but without talking about it here first
Hi Tanbircdq - that is a 'full house'of issues you inserted! {{POV section {{Undue weight {{Primary sources {{Self-published {{original research {{BLP sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=795042934&oldid=795033176

Would you be able to give your reasons for each one of those?

And also - why you took such a 'drastic' action without first trying to sound out other views here? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD: We have been discussing these issues above. TFD (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * yet there are questions to Tanbircdq that they chose not to answer, but instead to put up the issues. CanterburyUK (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Drastic action" is needed considering the concerning nature of the content that you have added which currently occupies the articles, despite various other editors objections. Again I ask you to restore them. I didn't choose to not answer them, you didn't make the question clear by providing diffs of what you were refering to or overlooked the answers.


 * I did discuss the issues but you continued to edit war the content into the article despite it being reverted by two different editors so I don't any other way of getting wider involvement with the problematic content that you are proposing to add. I find it interesting that you're asking me to give my reasons before the tags can be placed, however, you feel your edits should remain without obtaining consensus for them. I won't be responding on this header by the way. There's two headers already which is more than enough to discuss the issues and any more makes it confusing to follow the discussion. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
 * This Warning on my User page was issued by Tanbircdq at the same time : first time I've heard of an 'edit war'. And the message includes links to 6 rather wordy WP pages. Phew! I'd welcome any views or tips on this.
 * ''"Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn.


 * ''"While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.


 * ''"If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.


 * ''"If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.


 * "Continued edit warring on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Tanbircdq (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC) CanterburyUK (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"Yeah, warnings shouldn't be copied into talk pages of articles, I would remove this if I were you. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Workplace Democracy
Corbyn adovcates workplace democracy. Should also be mentioned in the article.--46.90.19.116 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi please provide reliable sources for this, thank you.  Seagull123  Φ  13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH
There's a problem with saying The problem is that it is synthesis from a primary source. Normally it would be fine to go back and forth on this until a consensus version was released. As this is a biography of a living person, I am redacting that until a consensus version can be reached here. I take no further interest in this matter other than enforcing BLP. On a related note, we cannot use tabloid journalism on this article either. --John (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated some of this text with an appropriate third party source. Dtellett (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Syria: the reverting over Corbyn's view of humanitarian aid drops
There seems to be a lack of consensus on this issue, as evidenced by repeating reverting and replacement of text, it started with me adding it and it being reverted: more recently Tanbircdq reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=797340217, and 190.136.121.151 puts it back saying 'No consensus, you are the only one removing this' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=797210719; in response to which Tanbircdq reverts it again, writing 'The talk page consensus among multiple editors was against this content, beware of sockpuppeting too!)' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=797340217.

Tanbircdq in his reverts has referred to talk page consensus.

I've created thos section, to bring clarity to us all, as to the nature of the consensus there actually is here.

On the specific subject of Syrian humanitarian aid drops, there has been some discussion here in the talk page already, but now it is rather buried above; so for clarity I have pulled out the main arguments here, into one place.

Firstly, starting statements that are (correct me if anyone disagrees) - agreed by us all:


 * 1) Corbyn's views on Syria are noteworthy: so worth recording here
 * 2) his views on Syrian humanitarian air drops are noteworthy
 * 3) he has never made any statement to a RS that he is either for or against them
 * 4) but other, reputable people, have pointed out that he has not done anything to support air-drops: eg not advocated in parliament for them:  (ie he could have done, but has not, things that he has done on other subjects: such as write open letters to the PM (eg on recently proposed school education changes)
 * 5) these other people, (reputable, long-term friends and fellow anti-war travellers with him) have publicly called him to account, to his face on this:  eg Peter Tatchell interrupted his HUman Rights day speech.
 * 6) Those actions HAVE been reported by RS (the BBC):
 * 7) those reputable people and the BBC have therefore made explicit what is not explicit in Corbyn's own words:  the fact that he has NOT advocated for air-drops, and that he is therefore not in favour of them.
 * 8) That in response to the above interventions, Corbyn still chose not to advocate for aid-drops - but he did not make a statement to that effect:  he simply chose not to act to support the air-drops

Conclusion: we editors now can all agree that Corbyn's view is that he is not in favour of aid-drops - but he has made no statement from him to that effect.

The resulting dilemna for us editing the Syria section

 * 1) We have no statements from Corbyn himself, all we do have are evidence of his views contained within  criticism of him,  for his lack of action
 * 2) And if we include those criticisms it appears at first glance that we are perhaps opening the page to become 'criticisms of Corbyn' which is not what the page is about.
 * 3)  however  - on closer examination that is NOT the case: as already in the talk page it has been agreed that criticism can legitimately be included provided it is ' sourced and noteworthy' (SeaGull123's phrase).  So the above would meet those 2 tests.

Now onto things that we are not all in agreement on:
 * 1) TFD has made the valid point that 'If no reliable sources have made an observation, then it is contrary to synthesis for us to do so'.  But the uncontroversial facts above, show that there are sources who make the observations: and no synthesis by us is required.

So there seems to a be a lack of consensus: as some editors, including Tanbircqd for sure, (and quite possibly N-HH, TFD and others who have made cases against the inclusion of air-drops)  appear to not see the BBC as RS and to feel that quotations by the BBC of Peter Tatchell et al is not sufficient.

'''The big question to Tanbircqd, TFD and N-HH, and anyone else who has concerns about the basis of including Corbyn's views on this matter:
 * if the BBC and Peter Tatchell are not adequate - what would be?''' CanterburyUK (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want support from other editors you should avoid sarcastic comments such as saying they do not appear to see the BBC as RS. No one questions that they accurately reported what Tatchell said which is what being reliable means.  The issue is how significant Tatchell's opposition is.  He's a person who wrote, "Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused."  Have you added his comments to articles about other public figures?  You would need to explain whey his opposition was noteworthy per policy.
 * Any you have your last question the wrong way around. You should not decide what should be in the article and look for sources, but should identify the best secondary sources and see what they say about Corbyn.  If they routinely neglect his views on dropping parcels on Syria then it doesn't belong in the article.  The fact that the only criticism you found came from a highly controversial figure shows that.  TFD (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks TFD. You have two issues it seems. Firstly whether Tatchell himself is noteworthy enough: for that, I did a quick Google of mentions of him in Wiki: there are loads. Including comments from him on pages about other people: which was one of your points. He's received various awards band recognitions. Secondly, you rightly ask if he is noteworthy on this issue of Syria. If his Syria protest was covered by the BBC is not sufficient for you in that regard, what would be sufficient? Would coverage from a quality newspaper be enough? Or from two? Incidentally, I've ignored your quoting Tatchell for his views on sexual matters, as that seemed entirely not relevant to your point, that what is important is his noteworthiness on this  specific topic. Lastly, if Tatchell is for you a weak source, what would be enough- would for example adding an MP into the mix add weight? (Canterbury UK)


 * He is a notable person but that does not mean that everything that proceedeth from his mouth is worthy of quotation in every article on every subject upon which he deigns to opine. The relevant policy is weight:  "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."  Now since you think otherwise, are you going to add to articles his opinions about adults having sex with nine year olds?  Do you think maybe everyone got it wrong because he holds a different opinion?  TFD (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * :TFD thanks for replying. But could you answer my question? Canterbury UK


 * I thought I did. Noteworthiness does not depend on the person speaking but on the degree of coverage of their comments in reliable sources in this case mainstream media.  So we would expect with a person of Corbyn's prominence that the criticism would get coverage in all major newspapers and television news over an extended period of time.  Compare with the poll tax in the Margaret Thatcher article.  Tatchell mentions it in  10 his postings.  It attracted comment from many people over an extended period of time.  Mainstream media decided it was an issue.  There are 3,620 hits on Google news, including from last month.  Instead of deciding what the article should say and looking for sources, you should look for sources on Corbyn and see what they find important and put that into the article.  Otherwise you could get policy changed or contribute to an anti-Corbyn webite.  TFD (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi TFD. My question that you didn't answer was at the end of my comment: f you personally do not find Tatchell noteworthy enough, would you be satisfied if an MP had also taken up the issue? (I'll ignore your comparison to poll-tax, as I don't think you intend to set the media coverage of that, rather unique law change, as a benchmark against which all political views of Corbyn in this page must be measured, else 99%of the page would deleted!. CanterburyUK.
 * '''Hi TFD, any chance of commenting on my response to you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.133.25 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussions about notability and sourcing are slightly missing the point. The issue is much simpler than that: this is a page about Corbyn's positions, not about positions other people, whoever they might be and however much coverage their statements might have received, think he should have taken. You've obviously failed to convince anyone this stuff needs to be here, so I'd give up and save yourself and everyone else their time. And perhaps take the advice about looking to other forums for this kind of thing.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi N-HH. You are repeating what you have already written. You are saying that TFD is missing the point. But you are not addressing what I wrote. Unless you do that you are not really moving this forward. You will see from what I wrote that this case has nothing to do with your concept of whether 'he should have taken' some views.
 * Secondly, I am not the only one here who reverts Tanbircdq's deletions on this specific, so not sure that 'failed to persuade anyone' stands up to examination. CanterburyUK
 * No, I'm saying you're missing the point (although other people have been decent enough to debate you on it). Which is why I have had to keep repeating it. Happy to stop doing that now. And you and a random IP doesn't amount to much more than you, I'm afraid, even if it isn't you logged out.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi N-HH, sorry but again you repeat yourself and again you fail to comment on anything I actually wrote above. I started this section to discuss exactly the issue of Corby position on humanitarian aid drops in Syria, and made it clear that this is not straight forward because his position is not revealed in his own words but only by his own actions. So please, do comment on what I wrote above concerning this. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.133.25 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I oppose including anything about Syrian air drops in this article, as JC has not said anything about it (as far as the refs I've seen show). Just because someone has said he hasn't said anything about it, then inferring that he opposes them - does not mean that he believes this. If/when he says something about air drops - provide RS and include in the article.  Seagull123  Φ  18:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Press TV
Press TV being broadcaster was censured by OFCOM and had its UK licence revoked isn't a political position of Jeremy Corbyn, I have removed this as per WP:SYNTH. Also, I've removed unsourced content about Corbyn speaking at the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution.

User:CanterburyUK, please don't readd this by IP hopping on throwaway IPs addresses nor sockpuppet user accounts. You have been warned about this before. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Tanbircdq, it's shame you have to personalise and use ad hominens. I've put it back up - it was not in any case unsourced content about Corbyn speaking at anniversary of the Revolution! I see you have followed me to the Margaret Thatcher page too and deleted new sourced content I added. You did exactly the same over there in August when I edited. It's not a page you had ever edited before, and the timing of your action makes it clear you had followed me there both times.  Now I see you have raised an unwarranted  complaint of sock-puppetry against me. Back in August you raised a formal complaint against me too, that was not upheld.  Maybe you can make this less personal from now on?CanterburyUK (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * CanterburyUK regarding "personalise and use ad hominens", you've accused me of hypocrisy here. I made you aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND here, you again made the same claim here albiet although wording it as "people might view this as hypocritical" to cover youself here.


 * But sticking to the point, multiple editors including Dtellett, Seagull123, Govindaharihari, The Four Deuces appear to have disagreed with your attempts to add content regarding the nature of it not relating to Jeremy Corbyn's political position on this talk page. You appear to be doing a similar thing with Moxy on the Margaret Thatcher as demonstrated here and here. Your continuous attempts to convolute a simple concept has buried the discussion here but the community consensus appears to be quite clear on the matter.


 * As per WP:BURDEN, please explain before readding it again what a broadcaster being censored has got to do with "Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn"?


 * Also, please add a source for the paragraph about the Iranian Revolution anniversary. Unsourced content will get removed. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tanbircdq(A) your first two paragraphs are about what happened back in August 2017 - is there any need to dig over that again? You made a formal complaint about me than and it led to nothing.


 * B) You write ' please add a source for the paragraph about the Iranian Revolution anniversary.' - the links I gave were to another Wiki page - is a Wiki page not enough of a source? That page contains the sources anyway.  So it's not clear what your objection here is? Maybe you didn't click through to the linked page to see it was sourced? I can only assume that you want to see the sources listed in the other page, also listed here. OK, I;ll do that and update.


 * C) You write "please explain before readding it again what a broadcaster being censored has got to do with "Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn". This has nothing to do with me!;  the History shows that there was ALREADY a reference to the broadcaster being censored; eg look back to october after SeaGulls edit it was there! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&oldid=804249380#Iran, see the text ' He also briefly held a paid slot presenting on Iran's state-funded broadcaster Press TV, a decision criticised particularly after the broadcaster was censured by OFCOM for broadcasting a forced confession from a Tehran jail'.
 * So my edit was simply to add sources where there had been none before; and to add with links to a wiki page that has the sources' and had it's UK licence revoked; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=825527603&oldid=825525815
 * Instead of reverting my content, you could have chosen instead to discuss it on the talk page
 * May I politely ask again: Maybe you can make this less personal from now on? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Tanbircdq, actually - thank you - you;ve helped me learn something: that Wiki doesn;t allow pages to be sources. Kind of explains a syndrome I;d noticed - that sources (and text even)  get duplicated in multiple places:  seemed wasteful to me (with a software-developers approach to avoid duplication). Having said that - it would be have been quicker if you'd flagged that specific point up from the start, and copied the sources across yourself.80.189.49.209 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Was watchlisted, so got nudged, re this content, agree with User:Tanbircdq. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Govindaharihari -which part exactly do you agree with? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * CanterburyUK, I only mentioned it because you bought it up in the first place here. I don't believe I've said anything at all which is personal but there certainly have been a few instances of you making personal attacks and it does appear that you have a personal vendetta against Jeremy Corbyn but how about we stick to the topic rather than trying to play the victim here?


 * Thank you for adding sources to support your claim, try to do this every time so your edits stick. No, another Wikipedia page isn't a good enough source as per WP:CIRCULAR, each page needs its own sources. Also, remember to log in, it does not reflect well on you when you don't and claim other people are making these edits like here which N-HH responded to here.


 * I'm not disputing that the broadcaster was censored and the reasons why. The issue of contention is how is this a political position of Jeremy Corbyn? This appears to be partial editorising (as well as guilt by association) which should be removed which I'm assuming Govindaharihari agrees with (like all the editors who disagreed with you trying to add content regarding Jeremy Corbyn's inaction on Syrian air drops). The content has nothing to do with "Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn", unless Corbyn has said anything about it then it simply isn't a political position. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia
I notice there isn’t a section on Corbyn’s Views on Russia. Might this be something we include? Seems to be an odd omission. Contaldo80 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This Article Is A Propaganda Puff Piece on behalf of Momentum
What on Earth is this labour leaflet doing on Wikipedia? The ‘article’ reads like a partisan leaflet on behalf of Momentum (British hard left socialist org), surely, it must be removed? I recommend immediate deletion. Roland Of Yew (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Roland. Deletion of this article is impossible due to its strong wp:notability. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think it is biased? I know it doesn't say why these positions, such as free tuition, may be wrong, but it doesn't say why they might be right either. Basically, it's just outlining his positions. TFD (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would make a real point that it does offer a very partisan interpretations of his political positions -- there's a strong argument that there should be explicitly included a mention in the EU section of the fact that he was criticised for not having done much to back Remain, who he allegedly supported in the EU referendum, beyond noticing his critique of one claim. (This is particularly clearly notable in that it resulted in a leadership challenge against him.) For instance " Pro-European Labour MPs and campaigners expressed fear that Corbyn's allegedly lukewarm attitude towards the EU would convince Labour voters towards withdrawal. However, in September 2015, Corbyn said that Labour would campaign for Britain to stay in the EU regardless of the result of Cameron's negotiations, and instead pledged "to reverse any changes" if Cameron reduced the rights of workers or citizens." does both push forward a pro-Corbyn stance (with "However" the idea that he didn't convince Labour voters to go towards withdrawal -- for which there's no evidence) and attack his opponents with Weasel words (given the history of his opposition to the EU, his position isn't just "allegedly" lukewarm. there's a strong case to be made that the article should be looked over more critically. 92.21.50.76 (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 92.21.50.76, this would probably qualify for inclusion (IMO) if you can find some sources that back this up. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

the header
Hi, this page starts, This article summarises the policies - What policies has Corbyn got? As I understand it, This party policy is set by the National_Executive_Committee ((which Corbyn has only a single vote on)) and not by the leader of the party? Feel free to replace it and discuss if you think I am wrong on this. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support for Brexit
There is a little section called Support for Brexit, but none of the material in that section indicate a support for Brexit. They are all about Corbyn's views on what should happen if Brexit occurs (ie, if Brexit occurs, he supports abandoning the restriction on State Aid. I recommend renaming this section and I invite suggestions. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps it could be called State aid or Support for state aid. Jontel (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)