Talk:Traingate

Public opinion
I think the Public opinion section should either be deleted or expanded on with more polls and reactions because as it stands, it's just from one point in time and a lot more information has come to light which has possibly framed the whole situation differently since the poll was held on the 24th of August 2016. It may well have produced different results in respondents had they known that information at the time.

(talk) 2:22AM, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan246 (talk • contribs)


 * I expanded this with polls about the Labour leadership. If there are any other polls then please post them on here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it - Any polls about the labour leadership are worthless in this trash politic are worthless, Corbyn is a massive certainty to win and this trash traingate nonsense will, has made no difference at all - as you can see in the odds, if you bother to look,

it has had no effect at all - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you show us some sources for these assertions? Your comments above look like pure WP:FORUM, in complete denial of WP:RS reported polling, which is why I removed them. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Google them yourself, its easy - traingate twaddle has had zero effect on the odds massively in Corbyn's favor in the leadership election against Evans - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Awaiting your source. I think he's called Smith, by the way, not Evans. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Smith Evans, it is irrelevant -- he is of no consequence at all Govindaharihari (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Corbyn - odds, 1 to 9 - Smith 5 to 1 - hello - if you want a link ,. google all the bookmakers - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not going to recommend a bookmaker for us? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC) hello.
 * All the bookmakers have the same odds, Smith Evens is a massive outsider and traingate has made zero difference - I see that nonsense has been replaced, ow well, it will make zero difference according to the political betting - so, go ahead, cite and write all sorts of opinion - but the political betting says it is totally over, no contest - Govindaharihari (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, crystal tips. — Senior citizen smith (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that on the day of the EU vote, most bookmakers had Leave at over 5 to 1. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Is traingate a "political row" or "dispute"?
Ghmyrtle is objecting to me calling traingate "political row" in the opening line. They called the term "tabloidese", which is frankly ridiculous - all the highbrow media sources are calling this a political row, for the obvious reason - that is what it is. Ghmyrtle's favoured alternative, to call it a "dispute", is problematic for a number of reasons (in addition to it not being what newspapers are describing it as). Given the context, I think there is potential for readers to be confused, and will either assume that this "dispute" is either a trades union dispute (which is what most people would assume when seeing Labour Party and train company in the same sentence), or some kind of contractual dispute between Corbyn and VTEC over his rights as a consumer to be provided a seat. Of course, this confusion won't last long as people delve into the rest of the article and establish that what Wikipedia means by dispute in this context, is a political row, but honestly, why even introduce that confusion in the first place when there is no need to? Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My first main concern is not the use of "row" over "dispute" - though I do think "dispute" is preferable, as "row" is the sort of terminology used by tabloid sub-editors who need to use very short words.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that readers will think that "...this "dispute" is either a trades union dispute... or some kind of contractual dispute between Corbyn and VTEC.... "   But, I'm more concerned by the unnecessary use of the word "political".  It's a dispute between a politician, the media, and a business.  Any dispute involving a politician can be described as "political" in one sense - it's unnecessary to use the word.  But in another sense it is not wholly a political dispute, or a policy dispute about rail privatisation - it is a matter that encompasses both issues about one important politician's personal integrity, and also the relationship that politician has with the media.  The words "political row" do not adequately cover the ground. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ghmyrtle. Row tends to be a word used far too frequently by the newspapers, and often for things that don't necessarily amount to a row. To me, the word row brings to mind people shouting and ranting at each other, or at least having a heated debate, and neither of those things seems to be the case here. It's a political stunt that went pear-shaped, because someone disputed the claims that were made, and the press are generally anti-Corbyn anyway. Because of that I also favour dispute. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources which refer to traingate as a "row": The Indepedent, The Telegraph, The Guardian, the BBC.

Sources calling it a dispute: ?

And Ghmyrtle, "absolutely no reason whatsoever" - can you explain what this reasoning is based on? Where do you think I made an error in my explanation of where the potential for confusion lies?

You can drop "political" if you like - I am baffled by that viewpoint, I personally don't think I've ever heard of anyone having an integrity row or a media treatment row, and political rows almost always encompass one or both of those aspects, but I can live with it going since readers are not dumb, and will most likely subconsciously add "political" to it as soon as they finish the whole introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Length of article
As a more general point, the article is now becoming bloated to an absurd extent. It barely survived AfD - thankfully it did, but I doubt if anyone there thought that the matter was deserving of the amount of detail now contained in the article. Yesterday morning the article stood at some 11,000 bytes. It is currently at almost 31,000 bytes. That is a massive over-elaboration of an article that, on notability grounds, only barely deserves to exist. It is verging on unreadable. It should be radically trimmed of its excess and unnecessary detail. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree the article is bloated. Perhaps we should submit it for a copyedit. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As for the length, I await with interest what you two deem to be not worthy of mentioning, as I've been careful to use only the highest quality sources, or in the case of Heat Street, a noteworthy media commentator. I will be watching closely, as I think we have already seen rather too much substitution of what editors personally think is important, over what a review of the highest quality media outlets shows was important, in this matter.


 * Paul clearly thinks this incident doesn't need to be mentioned by Wikipedia at all, so I will not be surprised if he tries to remove any information which speaks to its importance. I hope neither of you are going to be so unwise as to assume that just because this article barely survived, it can be gutted to the point where readers might as well not read it in the first place. At the first sign of this happening, I shall put it up for deletion myself to save readers being served with the sort of complete shite that existed yesterday morning, because that pile of crap had numerous errors, both of factual accuracy (such as claiming the Corbyn video was released on 11 August) and basic omission (such as Branson being mentioned without readers even being told what he had even done). In truth, it was fucking garbage, and it was only the fact that the article was under threat of deletion that I didn't bother fixing it before. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly feel passionately about this article and its content, but remember to be civil when posting to this page. I already have an article awaiting attention at WP:GOCE, but when that's done I may submit this for some attention. Far from being an attempt to "remove any information which speaks to [the subject's] importance" or "[gutting the article] to the point where readers might as well not read it in the first place", the process would consolidate the information already here and make it more succinct. I'll be honest, I'm no fan of Corbyn–I think he's doing irreparable damage to the Labour Party, particularly with ill-conceived stunts like the one discussed in this article, and I hope they chuck him out in three weeks' time–but the content here does seem excessive at present. This is Paul (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As the article creator, and someone who voted "Keep" I agree that the article is very bloated and needs a good trim. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am horrified what is being "trimmed" from this article. It is so severe, it is so distorting, that I seriously have to question the motives, regardless of whether the person doing it wanted the article kept or not. Let's break it down:

1. this change, claimed to be removing political sounding language. Well, frankly, it seems obvious to me that pointing out VTEC is a private company is not making a political point, it's stating a crucial fact. Worse, the introduction now idiotically states Corbyn's aim was to support his policy of reversing privatisation, as if all readers would know the existence of a "Virgin Trains East Coast train" is a result of privatisation. As for attempting to remove political wording, what is "Corbyn was accused in the press of misleading the public" if not grossly misleading political commentary? Indeed, does anyone even have an example of a newspaper actually accusing Corbyn of such? All I see is the press pointing out Virgin disputes his account, and explaining why.

2. this hack removes mention of Branson's tweet - as I said above, it is idiotic for this article to jump into referring to Branson without explaining what he did. It persuades the reader to wrongly assume he was the author of the VTEC statement contradicting Corbyn, which he obviously wasn't. It also removed details about the subsequent tweets from Virgin - no doubt this pleases those who would rather people believed this was not a long running row involving multiple exchanges, but come on, each one of those subsequent tweets generated yet another story.

3. this "merge" is also horrendous - it removes all mention of Corbyn's campaign manager attacking Branson personally, leaving readers with the impression this was just a dispute between Corbyn and the company. You don't need to be a genius to realise this plays into the pro-Corbyn view, namely that he isn't the sort of guy who descends to personal attacks as a strategy (or would allow his staffers to do so either). Taken with 2. it almost seems like a deliberate attempt to remove information about the role played by Twitter in the row, which is ridiculous as analysts have mentioned it specifically as being one of the reasons the row became a row in the first place - is that piece of info going next?

4. Regarding this "trim", words fail me. How is that not relevant, given all the fuss people made about this being just a silly season story, which nobody would take a blind bit of notice of? Again, the intent here seems to be to completely gut this article of any hint of the fact that this row generated some serious meta-analysis (and polling people to see if they've heard about a political row during the political recess is about as meta as it gets).

5. And this cutting down of a quote beggars belief too - it establishes precisely why Corbyn's performance in rows like this is under intense scrutiny. With stuff like this gone, again, it seems like the intent is to portray this as a mere silly season story, rather than as something that many saw as feeding into a wider narrative about his campaign (or the media's portrayal of him, if you like). Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So your theory is that I am secretly a Corbyn supporter and created the article and voted "Keep" just so that I could later trim it down? Right.... The issue is that you seem to have included a fair amount of content from each of a large number of articles that have been published about Traingate and there seems to be a consensus that the article should be trimmed (if you disagree perhaps we could wait for more contributions). As the whole issue is fairly damaging to Corbyn then obviously any trim is likely to remove more anti-Corbyn content that pro-Corbyn content. To address each of your points in turn though:

1. Most people have a negative image of privately owned train companies, and stating that VTEC is a private company in the first line seems unnecessary - if you wish then maybe it could be stated later when we talk about Corbyn wanting to reverse privatisation.

2. Fair enough, leave it in if you think removing it will create confusion.

3. Are there any sources which say that it was a personal attack? (I think it was, but unless there are sources which say so then you can't really use it as an argument)

4. Was there a lot of fuss about it being a silly season article? So far just seen the one argument from the Guardian journalist (in the article) who says it was.

5. That is already a fairly long paragraph, we should be careful of giving undue weight to one voice. Corbyn's lack of media strategy is already in the "Media analysis" section, I don't think we need it in there twice. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's getting extraordinarily long and detailed, with way too much newspaper commentary and stitched-together analysis. And Heat Street? Please. The point I made at AFD remains valid: WP is not a news aggregator or summariser of media and near-blog commentary.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a stretch that a Corbyn supporter would want to create and then control the content of this article so that it gives readers Corbyn's side of events, and minimises everything else, using their status as its creator as justification. As has been seen, for Corybnites, the strategy of trying to get it deleted was obviously flawed and doomed to fail, largely because their lies about it being no big deal were spotted by enough people, who did their own research to see how this row was covered, and said it should be kept based on what they found. Now it seems they're trying a new strategy, to try and "trim" out all the information that shows it was more than just a bit of routine news reporting over a trivial issue, airbrushing from the article all the info, all sourced to the highest quality reports, which showed the row generated serious amounts of in depth reporting and even meta analysis. If they succeed, and I suppose they might if they try to railroad others out of the way, then they are presumably hoping the next deletion debate will involve people who are a little more inclined to swallow what they are fed without conducting their own research. Which is all a shame for Wikipedia, which hardly has the best reputation as it is - it's a disgrace they came so close first time around frankly.

I have included material from a large number of sources because there were a large amount of sources out there. I see no reason why this is an issue for an encyclopedia - the person above who keeps saying Wikipedia is not a news aggregator or summariser of media, as if that makes any kind of sense or justifies gutting this article, never did reply to me when I pointed out that is EXACTLY how Wikipedia compiles articles about current events. I don't think they have a clue what they're talking about. Obviously seeing this article contain information from a wide range of reputable sources pisses off those seeking to portray traingate as no big deal and who were/are trying to delete all mention of it from Wikipedia, but why should their distaste over the whole affair be allowed to control what goes into the article? This page is for people who want to get a quick summary of every noteworthy thing that happened during traingate - those who wish it never happened frankly don't need to read it, and their opinions over what is excessive are quite obviously going to be biased. This is not a free for all - anyone seeking to remove material from this article needs to have a convincing reason ready for why they think a reader would not want to know it - under no circumnstances is this article going to be gutted just because a few people say, 'hmm, yeah, it's a bit long', and aren't prepared to back up their views. You have at least bothered to put some thoughts down, so thanks for that, and here's my response:

1. What has what people think of train companies got to do with anything? It's crucial context - the whole reason this was even a row is because VTEC is a private company. And it needs to be stated before we talk about privatisation, since we don't actually bother to explain what privatisation even is in the introduction (and I note explaining it in the main article has now been "trimmed" too, what a joke) - I think it's a stretch to assume readers of the introduction will automatically know that privatisation of the railways created private operators like VTEC.

3. Casting Branson as "laughing all the way to the bank" is about as personal as you can get. He is basically saying Branson is robbing taxpayers. When combined with all the nonsense about stripping his knighthood, it all looks real nasty, so obviously, Corbyn supporters will be desperate to airbrush these parts of the row from the record, because they like to be seen as above all that, and indeed they really want people to think it is they who are the victims of persona attacks from people like Branson. Wikipedia really shouldn't be helping them to manage their image. If any of Corbyn's supporters can find any attacks coming the other way, they're free to include them in the article, but I didn't see any.

4. Check the sources. As the row progressed, quite a few of them started to have introductions like 'well, you may have thought traingate was a trivial affair/silly season story, but.......', after which they go on to explain the various reasons why it had legs (renationalisation being a key Corbyn policy, his handling of the row feeding the narrative that he's a bit of a joke, the prospect that he lied or it was staged striking at the heart of his desire to be seen as a no spin politician, etc,). Certainly nearly all the Wikipedia editors wanting this article deleted thought it was a silly season story - but it's hardly news that they were talking out of their backsides and either simply hadn't read any of the sources, or had, but decided to lie about what they saw anyway. The phrase "man bites dog" was actually used, if you can believe it - from none other than Paul, who now wants to have the article "copyedited".

5. There's a difference between his apparent lack of an effective media strategy (knowing what to say and when), and the impression that he often simply goes missing when the shit hits the fan. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't disappeared, but I have a massive headache. This is Paul (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem with the article is too much opinionated chat, according to this source, according to that source etc, and endless quoting of people with vested interests, rather than a down the middle statement of the facts. Hence at some point, a major rewrite will be needed. 7dayrr (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hilarious. This is only a row because different people have different views of what the "down the middle statement of the facts" actually is - it is standard practice in such cases to say who says what, so that readers can judge whether or not their view is coloured by "vested interest". A statement like "Corbyn walked past empty seats" will be perceived very differently depending on whether it comes from Virgin, a left wing newspaper or a right wing newspaper. If all you want this article to say is that Corbyn said he couldn't find a seat and Virgin disagreed, if that is your idea of a chat free fact based article, then sorry, you're not writing an article about traingate, and you sure as hell aren't summarising what the media has said about it, you're simply trying to write precisely what the people who never wanted this to exist in the first place wishes it would contain. They are desperate to gut it back to the bare bones in just that fashion, so that they can then delete it because it was a non-story. It's so obvious, I don't know why people are even pretending they have no ulterior motive with all this talk of "trimming". Let's call it what it is - managing the message. Which is ironic. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm not sure that there is any trimming which Krusty Kristovsky will not think is a conspiracy theory, so let's wait for some more consensus about trimming the article down. Currently Krusty Kristovsky is the only one who doesn't think it should be trimmed.


 * Numbers won't make much difference - if I am outnumbered five to one, and those five people all still refuse to explain why readers will not miss the bits they want to "trim", then all that will prove is that all those stories about Wikipedia's left leaning bias are true. I am happy with trimming or making more concise in the true sense of the words, i.e. the removal of redundant or superfluous material while retaining the essential meaning, but nothing that's been trimmed so far meets that definition, not even close - everything trimmed so far has either degraded the factual accuracy, removed important context, or made the article more flattering to Corbyn. It might become more readable if we start removing stuff like noting which things happened on which date
 * By that argument, you could refuse to ever remove any content from an article - we have to strike a balance between including content that is relevant and keeping the article readable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you really couldn't. If material is relevant, it belongs here. Articles don't become more readable by sacrificing accuracy, comprehensivity and neutrality. They merely become shorter. Certain people may well be extremely happy about that sort of outcome as a result of trimming, but let's not pretend they would deserve the description of encyclopedia editor. That's the downside of Wikipedia - since nobody has to identify themselves, nobody knows if they're working for Corbyn or not. All you can do is look at the effect of their trimming, and if it looks like they're trying to make the article more flattering to Corbyn, or if it is designed to smooth the way for eventual deletion, then you can't really blame people for assuming they don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And if there are lots of them, then there are lots of them, c'est la vie. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Traingate was a one week wonder, it is neither going to make or break Corbyn. Some will want to maintain the rage for a little longer, but long term it will be seem as a relatively trivial event and a few paragraphs on the Corbyn article will be suffice. 7dayrr (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said at Corbyn's page, your personal theories and desires are irrelevant here, this isn't a chat room. Wikipedia is about facts, if you want people to believe traingate was a one week wonder and will be forgotten, which frankly is contrary to everything most people know about UK politics or media, then by all means start a blog, or maybe even buy a newspaper, to cover the 'real' stories. As you might have already guessed though, there really is no money to be made in that fantasy land world. Plenty of placards and angry noise and clicks from like minded people, but no money or tangible real world effect. If you want my opinion, Corbyn is heading for a landslide defeat in 2020, and it's shit like this which will be name checked in his political obituary. I shall endeavour to not let that colour my actions here though - I shall continue to rely on facts and evidence to protect this article from the inhabitants of the fantasy lands. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heat Street as a source

 * I agree about Heat Street, I don't think its a reliable source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliability of Heat Street is irrelevant as far as I can see, they are only being used as a source for what they said, not for any factual claim - readers are free to disagree with their accusation. And anyone claiming they are not a notable source for just such commentary during a political row, is showing their complete ignorance of UK politics - just check the article on Louise Mensch if you don't know who she is. Again, given what they are saying, it is no surprise that this piece of the story is what Corbyn supporters would object to most. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the reliability of Heat Street is irrelevant, just as we wouldn't include a comment from the equally unreliable but pro-Corbyn Canary about how this was all a cover for the Tories to scrap the Human RIghts Act (should be noted that the pledge to scrap the HRA was already in the Tory manifesto, so not exactly a huge secret released while everyone was distracted by Traingate). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As for Heat Street, "unreliable" suggests to me you mean it is untrustworthy. Is that your intent? If you want to include mention in the article that Canary thinks about it, you can do so - all you need to do is show that Canary is a noteworthy commentator, as Heat Street obviously is, and then make it clear in the text that you are simply repeating what Canary said, rather than blankly saying that it was a cover up. This is basic stuff, it really is - I'm surprised to see confusion, although not that surprised. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily untrustworthy, but has a lack of fact-checking and editorial standards. As I wrote above, I don't want to include a comment from the Canary because it also is not a reliable source. I suggest you read WP:QUESTIONABLE for some more info. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also "reliable source" has a specific meaning on WP, related to but not solely about reliability in a literal sense. Saying something doesn't meet RS isn't necessarily to say they get things wrong or don't know what they're talking about. Of course it's a reliable source, by definition, for the opinions of its writers; the issue is whether those opinions are of any import or value in an encyclopedic context. And KK, can you stop slamming people as ignorant for making different judgments to you? I know exactly who stands behind Heat St, which is one of the reasons why it's inappropriate. It's a partisan, tabloidy source. And beyond questions of reliability, it's about due weight and the need to avoid stuffing a WP page with endless "he said, she said" commentary and third-party interpretation.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, the opinions that Heat Street is not noteworthy are duly noted. I will probably pay them more attention when someone actually demonstrates that Heat Street, or more importantly, this piece they wrote, has not been fact checked or submitted for editorial review (note they have been quite clear about their attempts to fact check, it's not their fault The Guardian is unwilling to answer their queries). I don't have a lawyer on retainer, but maybe others here do, and so perhaps they see no issue with making claims about a publication that don't seem like they would stand up in court, a UK court anyway, I know in the US you can say what you like about who you like, and Wikipedia doesn't half grasp that liberty with both hands, if talk page comments about politicians and the media are anything to go by. Personally, if we're comparing that story with the Canary one, I can see clear daylight, and I suspect anyone who had no strong opinions on Corbyn would see it too, that one was a fact free blog type rant, and the other is more like proper journalism, albeit with an obvious direction of opinion. Similarly, objections over giving it undue weight would be more convincing if it wasn't for the fact it was being used to support about 0.05% of the words in this article. Again, as I'm sure anyone with no strong feelings for Corbyn would appreciate, it gets a proportionate amount of space here. Did their theory get widespread attention? No. But does their theory dominate this article? Again, no. This is how you balance importance, at least in the real world. These descriptions of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and therefore doesn't include such things are demonstrably quite false, just like the whole 'not a news aggregator' spiel - chuck a rock in any direction in the political articles here and you will find such sources being used alongside more mainstream journalism, liberally and if noteworthy, as this one is being. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the founders of this site suggested it would "mock the mainstream", which implies to me an element of unreliability. I am very cautious of using sources from the left or right that are outside the mainstream, and/or are populist in nature. Generally I think the sensible thing to do is to stick with tried and tested sources like the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, etc. This is Paul (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That may very well be your preference, but I think it's even more sensible to follow the general practice found across all of Wikipedia's politics articles - rely on the mainstream for the bulk of articles, but include opinions from the wings when it is appropriate, relevant, and presented in proportion. The Guardian were the drivers of this story, The Guardian is about the only mainstream non-tabloid that even comes close to supporting Corbyn, so it seems highly relevant to note in a very small way what a very influential commentator from the opposite side of the spectrum had to say about their role in the affair. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the principle of "rely on the mainstream for the bulk of articles, but include opinions from the wings when it is appropriate, relevant, and presented in proportion", I'd like to suggest you try citing the Daily Mail as a source somewhere, and see how long it lasts before someone removes it. This is Paul (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would never use the Daily Mail as it is a tabloid (by the usual definition, not the weird word choice snobbery over "row" seen above). The relevance to this section is frankly lost on me. Can you confine your comments to the issue at hand, for example, other than the fact it published a story you don't like about a row you don't want covered in Wikipedia at all, can you find anything in this Heat Street piece which shows it was not fact checked or put through some kind of editorial process which would make it an unreliable source, as Wikipedia defines it (and your thoughts about their editorial stance is neither here nor there). Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, how was it "fact checked"? What process did it go through? How sure are you of that? Unless you write for them, then I suspect you know as much about their fact-checking process as the rest of us, which ain't much. Ask yourself if Heat Street is cited by mainstream media as a reliable source for news stories. Or what other media are saying about their articles (in terms of the piece you want to cite, has another outlet made reference to it?). Also, is Heat Street a news site, or just a site that aggregates news from elsewhere, and offers some commentary on top of that. I was unfamiliar with it until it cropped up here, but from what I can see it's a "new kid on the block", and hasn't been around long enough to build up any kind of reputation, whether good or bad. Two recent stories would make me think it leans towards the tabloid/populist end of the market. We have, for example, The Very Best of Donald Trump Anime (published on 2 September) and the exclusive news that ‘Independent’ Report Discrediting the Brexit Vote Was Written by Remainers from the same day (I guess one side had to write it). As for the site's political stance, don't get thinking I'm against it because of that. I was against citing sources from the Huffington Post for a long time, until it had firmly established itself, and I would make the same argument in this case.
 * Sadly I fear the time has come to stop engaging with you, as you seem unable or unwilling to compromise. People have attempted to give this article a more neutral point of view. You have reverted them. People have tried to explain politely that the article is unacceptable in its current format. In return you have submitted lengthy and rambling arguments that, at times, border on the uncivil. People have questioned the reliability of sources (which is what we do here). And you just don't want to listen. I hate to say this, but you appear to want this article to be little more than an outlet for Corbyn-bashing, including every banal minutiae of detail about a trivial event that most people have long forgotten. There's a place for this article, but its information needs to be neutral and succinct. In the hope this is just naivete because you are a new user, wake up. If it's not naivete, utter, utter shame on you. This is Paul (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's no secret, I used my eyes and my brain - upon finding nothing in the article that appears made up, and on seeing lots of things in it which can be fact checked by anyone if they so wish (do you wish?), I concluded it's been fact checked and put through the sort of editorial process you would not find in a tabloid or blog. They're quite new, sure, but how that makes them unreliable is not clear to me - and you do appreciate that while the title is new (but old enough for you to already being making judgements), the people behind it have established reputations? Your perceptions of what is and is not a tabloid certainly seem to me to need work, as I can find similar stories from high brow outlets, for sure - click this if you're brave enough. And I don't see the issue with it being populist either, how does that make it unreliable? I certainly haven't assessed their entire output, but assuming they only deal in media analysis, again, I ask why does that make them unreliable? Does their story questioning how The Guardian got its story somehow become more reliable if they also produced their own report on traingate? I'm not following your logic at all, and I can find no help in the link given above either, but maybe it's because I am naive and don't know where else to look for guidance on identifying reliable sources? The rest of your comment doesn't seem worth replying to in any great detail, and I won't at all now I know how much you hate reading. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So we'll conclude from your comments that you've no idea. A good place to start learning about what is and what isn't a reliable source might be WP:RS. As a rule of thumb though, generally look for broadsheet newspapers and/or established sources such as the BBC. This is Paul (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now Paul, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're starting to rile me. So listen here and listen good. You can conclude I have "no idea" once you're sure that will stand up in court - until then, mind your manners. If you look above, you will see that WP:QUESTIONABLE is a synonym for WP:RS - their common target is the link I referred to when I said I found no help in understanding your logic, so unless you intended to call me stupid and/or question my reading ability, I suggest you clarify your intent. From what I remember, there is no mention of your supposed rule of thumb, and frankly I am not surprised - and that is just the latest piece of evidence in my growing file marked 'Paul - Wikipedia expert or just winging it?'. That file is getting rather full just on this RS issue alone. I'm seeing more support for my position in it than yours, to be honest, but I am biased. Just so we're clear, I am asserting that HS is being used here to support an opinion/analysis and not a fact, and therefore issues like age or bias are not a factor. Ergo, I suggest you concentrate on finding some specific support in RS for your belief that Heat Street is unreliable for the purpose it is being used for here, and educate yourself about the publication and its owners if you are unfamiliar with what you need to know to apply the guidance properly. For obvious reasons, the closer your case is to what that page actually says, the more likely I will be to pay attention to it. To be honest, I think others have already given it the best shot it's ever going to get, and the lack of replies after my rebuttals suggest they're not all that confident in their initial view. Who knows, maybe you know something they don't. I have to say though, given your issue is with the length and succinctness of this whole article, I find it strange that you're fixating on this one paragraph/issue. It's going to be a long week if we have to do this for every other paragraph - especially as none of those is unreliably sourced, as I've made clear already (I'm not necessarily talking about any of the shit that was here before that I left in, of course). Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No I will not "listen here and listen good", and if you continue to make posts in this manner I'll report you to WP:ANI for you incivility. I have tried to help you. I felt I was a bit harsh on you the other day, but it seems some people just don't want to listen, and would rather argue with and insult others instead of actually having a constructive discussion about how to improve an article. In hindsight I was probably wrong to call you naive, because now I realise you're probably just obdurate. So...add what you like to the article. Find as much trivial tosh as you can lay your hands on. If this does survive more than a few weeks I'll be putting it through WP:GOCE, where sensible people can decide what is, and what isn't, important. This is Paul (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so it was intentional then. I'm not biting. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody's intentionally trying to do anything. It's time for you to grow up and stop chucking your toys out the pram every time someone disagrees with you. If you can't do that, and edit Wikipedia in the spirit with which it is intended, then I suggest you find something else to do. This is Paul (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Grow up? From the guy trying to appear as if he's not trying to wind me up? The only way you could repair your image here is if you stopped talking about me, stopped making fantasy claims about this article, and started proving you are here to contribute properly to Wikipedia. As soon as you find some specific support in RS for your views about this Heat Street piece, you will find I can work with you. But I suspect that you do not want to work with me, based on how this discussion has gone since I reminded you I had infact already read RS and gave you specific reasons why it supports the view the piece is reliable for the purpose and context it is being used here. It's clear to me from your actions that you're only interested in bullying me off Wikipedia, or provoking me into doing something that will see me ejected, so you can get to work on hacking this article into oblivion, to make sure the rest of the world is deprived of information you deem, without any supporting evidence, to be not worthy of retention on Wikipedia. You have constantly dodged talking about what is specifically in the article, or the quality or breadth of sources that supports it, and that can only really be because you know that if you did, you would have no case. So you keep dealing in worthless generalities and throwing up this obvious piece of misdirection - that all you're aiming for is a copyedit, for conciseness. You already know I have no objection to that, so I am seriously wondering why you've not even attempted it yet. It can only be because I have said I do not intend to sit by and watch the article's accuracy, comprehensivess and neutrality compromised in the process. You can say what you like, make whatever accusations you want, it won't change the simple reality that anyone will surely appreciate, that my goal of a comprehensive, neutral and accurate article, is perfectly in alignment with the the purpose of Wikipedia. Those who want to edit this article simply to make it appear as if the incident was trivial and will (i.e should) be forgotten because it's not "real" news, or because the establishment media is anti-Corbyn, etc. etc., they're the people whose motives are damaging to Wikipedia, and contribute to its longstanding reputation as a place where too much dodgy shit goes on for it to be seriously viewed as an encyclopedia. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as the great Paulo Coelho puts it, "Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear". I fear that's the case with you. Nobody is bullying you, nor are they collaborating in a conspiracy to silence Corbyn's critics. We're just telling you not to use that particular source, and that this topic is really just not as notable as you seem to think it is. It was a political stunt that backfired, like so many others in the past, and Wikipedia doesn't document them all in such detail. Anyway, enough said now; this page is coming off my watchlist. This is Paul (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obdurate?? I thought that was extinct. But looking forward to an article on Heat Street. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Another Traingate
I decided to Google Traingate to see what's still being written about it. There's an article from LBC from 3 September, but little else from recent days. However, according to this from The Jerusalem Post from yesterday, Israel has its very own Traingate controversy developing, albeit very different to this one. This is Paul (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Netanyahu is "going off the rails in his dealings with the train crisis"... "lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Israeli Traingate gets enough traction, we will end up with this being a disambiguation page. -- The Anome (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And now it looks like the Chinese have one, too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37340658 -- The Anome (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And now, Gary Neville's created a Jezza selfie. This is Paul (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Time to renominate this for deletion
So, since Corbyn has just been re-elected to lead Labour, and this incident had absolutely zero effect on the outcome, I'm wondering if it's time to take it to AFD again. I personally favour a merger with Jeremy Corbyn or Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, where this topic could be sufficiently covered without all the drama. If nobody except to the single purpose accounts objects I'll nominate it again in a couple of days. This is Paul (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What? Only six days after the "Red-Nev-Jezza-Selfie-Gate" incident?? Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When was the last time an article with 41 different cites from reliable sources got deleted ?--Penbat (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably the last time a topic failed WP:NOTNEWS. This is a footnote in Corbyn's career and needs only a brief mention in his article rather than an article of its own. I'm thinking of something along the lines of other scandals involving opposition leaders, which caused a raucous at the time, but didn't leave a lasting legacy. If we redirect/merge this then the page can always be resurrected if there is more to say on the subject. Another idea I have is to create something like Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn or Opposition leadership of Jeremy Corbyn into which some of thee things would fit quiet nicely (don't think we can call him a shadow prime minister, can we?). There will no doubt be lots more to write about his leadership before the next election, and there is a kind of precedent for such things with articles like Chancellorship of Gordon Brown and Home Office under Theresa May. This is Paul (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe so. Even though he does have a bicycle, he didn't call anyone a pleb, did he. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because no one has reported that it had an effect, doesn't mean that it didn't. The incident is still being covered in the media with this being published today mentioning it. I agree about Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, I am going to create this shortly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, you've convinced me this should stay around. The leadership election seems to have done little to ease the tension in Labour, and no doubt this incident will be used against him. This is Paul (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Guardian review, 7/10/16
The Guardian has published a review of its reporting and posting of the video by its readers' editor. I'm not sure how any of this can best be included here or how it might impact any second attempt at deletion, but there are some interesting points in it. For example this: While it doesn't address the "walks past empty seats point", it debunks any criticism that Corbyn himself or his team had deliberately implied they were seatless for the entire journey, or any suggestion that Virgin was "correcting" that impression when it released the CCTV stills showing him taking a seat. More fundamentally, the piece suggests the furore might never have blown up in the way it did had the paper been more precise about that:  N-HH   talk / edits  10:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Also, it notes the primary role played by the filmmaker as opposed to Corbyn's core team in releasing the material: More broadly the paper flagellates itself over not being entirely clear that this was a pro-Corbyn PR push rather than a news story as such and not being entirely clear about the identity of the bylined author of the accompanying text.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian was told at the outset that Corbyn had obtained a seat during his journey, but the information was not included in the news report which accompanied the video. Well after it had been established that Virgin Trains staff had organised a seat for Corbyn about 45 minutes into the journey, the original Guardian report still had the erroneous headline "Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey".
 * Although the Guardian did not intend to mislead readers, that was the effect for some time. Its pre-publication checks and balances failed in some respects. Post-publication, it was not quick enough to fix what it could, and to explain. Had the Guardian done so, the episode may not have generated the controversy which acquired that exhausted suffix, -gate.
 * Mendez tells me that it was he who decided to push the footage into the media. He says he told the Corbyn campaign of his intention. According to its co-director, Sam Tarry, the campaign was not given an opportunity to sign off on the package of video, still images and text which was later offered to the Guardian.

Trimming
Now that the dust has settled on this, I am going to trim this article down a fair bit in the next couple of days. If anyone has any comments before I do, then please make them here and we can discuss. I have made some minor trims, but I would also like to remove the Heat Street content (as per the earlier discussions), the last paragraph in the background section, the BBC and Guardian journalists who took the same train and the Daily Telegraph polling. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It is worth noting that, the user who defended the Heat Street link so passionately, has been indefinitely blocked following a CheckUser that unearthed a burgeoning sock farm, so I doubt we'll have any objections from them. This is Paul (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Trimming
Just deleted the Reactions section– lots of other editors found it similarly gratuitous and irrelevant. Further, I took a lot of the nitty-gritty details out of the background section; it read like a train geek got really into editing Corbyn-related articles. The focus on matters of small importance really did distract from the essential background. This article is being considered for deletion right now (I was the nominator) and I still believe this article ought to be deleted. However, others may believe in its preservation, and trimming will be a part of a compromise position should a compromise become necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedfitzy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that the AfD nomination has closed, can we remove this content? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)