This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
(a) If the criterion for mentioning that Kaufman is Jewish means the source used must state it, why then did you violate that selfsame criterion by removing Holocaust survivor to describe Hajo Meyer when the three sources used mention that fact? E.g. writes ‘Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp.’
In one edit, you manage ineptly to affirm and contradict the editing principle you insist on. That shows a POV at hand, i.e. the suppression of the important fact that on both occasions cited as instancing his antisemitism, Corbyn was accompanied by Jews. Crucial contextual detail that is rubbed out on incoherent, frivolous grounds.
(b)The text I corrected as stupidly solecistic ran.
being a member of three mainly pro-Palestinian online groups containing antisemitic posts
You protest that this is grammatically normal. The grammar is fine
Okay. This is a 'back to bubs' level blooper. I’m not going to do kindergarten tutoring on elementary grammar, but will ask this question: what is grammatically fine about writing that 'a group contains antisemitic posts'?
How does a group 'contain posts', be they anti-Semitic, or lampposts, or fencing posts etc? Do you realize that 'contain' means not only (a) holding but (b) curbing, and that this dumb piece of prose could equally mean 'curbing anti-Semitic postings'. A group as subject cannot 'contain' something written, except in sense b, which is not intended, fa chrissake.
People who can't grasp elementary English should not be editing the English version of this encyclopedia. Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
we don't have space to mention everything that is in relevant so
Are you comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler??!! Jeremy Corbyn is a left-wing who has a well-known history of fighting against racism and misogyny? Your comment is a violation of BLP. Just because the far-right wing media is accusing his party of being anti-Semite just because he is opposing
the right-wing racist government of Israel doesn't mean you can compare him to Adolf Hitler. -- SharabSalam ( talk) 08:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Bobrevert, there is no undue weight here and that's not the argument. All of the relevant sources mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor before mentioning his name. There is no reason for Wikipedia to not also mention that.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This page has obviously become a war-ground about subjective opinion regarding Jeremy Corbyn. The most glaring problem is that a simple google search on any random day of the week brings up multiple stories about accusations of anti-semitism leveled against Corbyn. As is clearly spelled out in various policies such as wp:balance and wp:npov the page should reflect that. Instead the discussion devolves into a cirurcular debate about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite. Balance means that major and repeated stories in the mainstream media need to be reflected accordingly. Ben133 ( talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There should be a link to /info/en/?search=Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party in the See also section, as is clearly practice based on Boris Johnson's See Also section.
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.-- DeFacto ( talk). 08:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Corbyn received up to 20k from Press TV and this shows in the register of members' interests, but the links are to articles about the figure in register of members' interests rather than the actual register of members' interests, which shows that the figure was up to 10k. Why are secondary sources being used when there is a primary source that contradicts them? See the following link for a primary source showing the register of member's interests does not show Corbyn receiving up to 20k from Press TV https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10133. 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 13:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Below is a logical and sourced argument for why the line "for which he was paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons" should not appear on the article. If anyone thinks any of my premises are incorrect or any of my conclusions don't follow please let me know. Otherwise I'd be obliged if someone could update the article:
Thank you 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 08:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Editors usually follow Wikipedia's guidance on terminology, I suppose, so just to point out that Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that: 'The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Jontel ( talk) 19:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Do other editors think his position on this is notable enough for the lede? The current content is:
In August 2019, Corbyn outlined a plan to prevent a no-deal Brexit, which involved holding a no-confidence vote in the government and forming a temporary caretaker government. He would then campaign for a "public vote on the terms of leaving the European Union, including an option to Remain". [1] [2]
Thoughts? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 18:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Yes, because it is huge and of extended duration, already running for three years of his four years in office. More content on it is required in 5.4 or 4.5 and some sort of summary of his engagement with the issue put in the lead. The current sentence in the lead is too specific. Jontel ( talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Jeremy Corbyn's A-level grades were discussed earlier here: [1]. Nevertheless, the article incorrectly states now that '[Jeremy Corbyn] achieved two A-Levels, at grade E, the lowest-possible passing grade, before leaving school at 18'. Grade E is the lowest possible passing grade only since 2002. From 1963 to 1986 grade O was the lowest possible and grade E was the next-to-lowest [2]. Also the article that is put as a source to the very incorrectly statement: [3] goes as: '...former Prime Minister John Major joked that Corbyn performed better than him – because he got O-levels'. I am updating the article with this correction. A.I.K. ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence: ‘Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, and supporting Jewish communal initiatives.’ The last (italicized) clause has a footnote refence to https://www.jewishtelegraph.com/alderman.html, but the linked article makes no mention of Corbyn. So I’m deleting both the clause and the footnote reference. - Aingotno ( talk) 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone edit the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285)" as this is factually incorrect.
When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion. 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285) was "not an enormous amount"" be amended to the "He also said that the money received was "not an enormous amount"". My reasons for this are stated in full on the Talk page. In short, a source says the amount is in the Register Of Member's Financial Interests, but the actual Register and the website theyworkforyou.com do not show the amount claimed.
When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion.
Thank you 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that this has been discussed before, but there is room for improvement. I propose replacing:
with
This is much shorter, more elegant and addresses the point more directly. It is rather clumsy to use the same word three times in two sentences, which also gives it unwarranted emphasis. It doesn't mention past associations, but these are subordinate to the issue of the party. Jontel ( talk)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Corbyn has won two peace prizes so far, which only received secondary coverage in the Camden New Journal so far. It seems unreasonable to include this in the lede, especially when it doesn't mention (for example) the breakaway of Labour MPs complaining about his leadership. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@ JJARichardson: removed the sentence about the peace prizes from the lead, saying that it was WP:PEACOCK. I agree, given the lack of secondary coverage. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 12:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thirteen MPs (Field, Berger, Coffey, Gapes, Lewis, Leslie, Shuker, Smith, Umunna, Ryan, Austin, Mann and Ellman) have resigned from Labour due to concerns over Corbyn's leadership. Should we mention this in the lead? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative In considering this, we might consider whether it is distinctive i.e. have many more MPs resigned the whip than have done under other leaders. I suspect we will find that a number of MPs have resigned under other leaders. A second consideration is whether their resignations were over a major policy point. In reality, some mentioned Brexit, some antisemitism, some were facing deselection and the context was that much of the PLP are hostile to Corbyn anyway and were attracted by the prospects of a centrist grouping. A third, perhaps most important consideration is whether their departure prompted a major policy shift or adversely affected Labour's prospects. This is hard to assert. Labour has always asserted its opposition to antisemitism. On Brexit, its policy has arguably not greatly shifted or, if it has, it is due to multiple pressures. On Labour's prospects, the Change group failed and Labour's and Corbyn's decline in support can be ascribed to its Brexit policy and media coverage rather than their departure per se. In conclusion, I would say include it in the article but not the lead. Jontel ( talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative I doubt you could express it in such a way that it is both neutral and summarises the part it plays in the body of the article proportionately. ← ZScarpia 12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: We have a section describing the resignation of 7 MP's over "Corbyn's handling of Brexit and of allegations of anti-semitism". Are there sources saying that Corbyn's leadership was the factor in all 12 resignations? I haven't looked at all the resignations. The one article I read about Ellman implied she resigned to avoid being triggered by her local members. Her letter of resignation apparently said she would not support a Corbyn government but the article did not give further details. Burrobert ( talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative - This isn't relevent and leadworthy to this page. If it needs to go anywhere, it should go on the Labour page. RevertBob ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this duplicate word in the section " Allegations of antisemitism": "several of the signatories had themselves been been accused of antisemitism" 81.96.15.89 ( talk) 00:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we describe the media as being "hostile" or "negative" (or another word)? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the proposition to be voted on is whether the wording should remain: 'Media coverage of Corbyn is generally hostile.' Jontel ( talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
1) Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism. { http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn} { https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html}
2) More than forty senior academics have written to the Guardian to condemn what they see as an anti-Corbyn bias in media coverage of the antisemitism debate. The letter condemns journalism that “so blatantly lacks context, perspective and a meaningful range of voices in its determination to condemn Jeremy Corbyn”, saying the media has weaponized antisemitism against Corbyn ahead of important elections. [3]
3) The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Overall, we found 95 clear cut examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting on mainstream television and online news platforms, with a quarter of the total sample containing at least one such example. The problem was especially pronounced on television – which reaches far wider audiences by comparison – where two thirds of the news segments on television contained at least one reporting error or substantive distortion. [4] Jontel ( talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Yes, I'd be happy with unfavourable. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Diane Abbott told the Sunday Times in November 2015 that she and Corbyn never went to East Germany - they went to the South of France (confusion may have arisen because there is a reference to the bike being East German).
See https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-ukipper-in-last-ditch-stand-at-doomed-odeon-a3110046.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-seeks-up-to-pound5000-for-speech-2zdvjrwklh6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoGraffiti ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence describing the Chakrabati report, please included the following; The Jewish community, including the Chief Rabbi and Board of Deputies of British Jews were united in calling the Chakrabati Inquiry a "whitewash".
[1] TeaTree 09:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
References
He worked for press tv but i think it is deleted Baratiiman ( talk) 05:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
as I see it there is no actual evidence Papadopoulos had dinner with Corbyn. In the photographs there is take-out at Corbyn's side of the table. It's also unlikely that Papadopoulos, a vegan, would be having dinner at a restaurant with no vegan options. I would propose changing it to "having been photographed with Papadopoulos at a restaurant" instead of "having dinner with". -- 1Veertje ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone please add the template which says that the subject of the article is involved in a current event and information may change rapidly? There's a similar template at the top of 2019 United Kingdom general election; I'm aware of the desired "change X to Y" format but I can't seem to remember this template's name. 49.36.11.111 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 49.36.11.111 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo 11:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)This claim has no source or citation. It should be removed until there is a reliable source to support this claim. or at least we should ask for a reliable source. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/79.182.229.174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.229.174 ( talk) 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you should check out this study [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor recently requested that we add references at a few points in the lead and provided a reference to wiki policy to support the request. The policy seemed to fit the situation so the relevant references were added. A second editor has now removed these for a reason that I didn't understand and that does not seem to relate to the first editors concerns. Can we make a decision please about whether references are required at the points indicated by the first editor. It has the potential for being a big time-waster. Burrobert ( talk) 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Corbyn has NEVER referred to himself as a 'democratic socialist'. Please remove this incorrect line from the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.153.203 ( talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Corbyn gained two A levels at E grade which meant he could not go to University. A Polytechnic at that time did not run degree courses. It would have been national certificate/diploma or Gity & Guilds. At Best he could have got an ONC/OND or City & Guilds as his A level grades would not get him on an HNC/HND course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.110.155 ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As the proud owner of a Polytechnic degree I can tell you that your assertion about polys - that it was not possible to study for degrees at them - is wrong. What is true, though, is that degrees were not awarded by the polys themselves but rather by the Council for National Academic Awards, which was abolished in 1992 when the polys were awarded university status, and with it the power to confer degrees themselves. Either way, it's true that Corbyn left NLP with no qualification of any kind, degree or otherwise. MFlet1 ( talk) 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, you have removed two paragraphs that have been discussed and there are RfCs to include them( 1 and 2).-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and supporting Jewish communal initiatives. [8]-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The fixation on "hostile media coverage" seems utterly meaningless and highly POV to me. All Labour leaders get negative press coverage, even Blair was described as a danger to Britain, closet Marxist and so on. JJARichardson ( talk) 11:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
"Allegedly" is outdated, the Saudis have admitted long ago that Jamal was killed inside the embassy and it is a fact. There is no one denying that Jamal was killed inside the Saudi embassy. See
[2] Saudi officials admitted last week that the U.S.-based dissident was killed inside the building.
--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk) 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Under further reading the biography by Tom Bower is listed. Should this be removed after The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline who serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology for publishing the “grotesque” allegations in the book? 80.47.137.128 ( talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
(a) If the criterion for mentioning that Kaufman is Jewish means the source used must state it, why then did you violate that selfsame criterion by removing Holocaust survivor to describe Hajo Meyer when the three sources used mention that fact? E.g. writes ‘Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp.’
In one edit, you manage ineptly to affirm and contradict the editing principle you insist on. That shows a POV at hand, i.e. the suppression of the important fact that on both occasions cited as instancing his antisemitism, Corbyn was accompanied by Jews. Crucial contextual detail that is rubbed out on incoherent, frivolous grounds.
(b)The text I corrected as stupidly solecistic ran.
being a member of three mainly pro-Palestinian online groups containing antisemitic posts
You protest that this is grammatically normal. The grammar is fine
Okay. This is a 'back to bubs' level blooper. I’m not going to do kindergarten tutoring on elementary grammar, but will ask this question: what is grammatically fine about writing that 'a group contains antisemitic posts'?
How does a group 'contain posts', be they anti-Semitic, or lampposts, or fencing posts etc? Do you realize that 'contain' means not only (a) holding but (b) curbing, and that this dumb piece of prose could equally mean 'curbing anti-Semitic postings'. A group as subject cannot 'contain' something written, except in sense b, which is not intended, fa chrissake.
People who can't grasp elementary English should not be editing the English version of this encyclopedia. Nishidani ( talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
we don't have space to mention everything that is in relevant so
Are you comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler??!! Jeremy Corbyn is a left-wing who has a well-known history of fighting against racism and misogyny? Your comment is a violation of BLP. Just because the far-right wing media is accusing his party of being anti-Semite just because he is opposing
the right-wing racist government of Israel doesn't mean you can compare him to Adolf Hitler. -- SharabSalam ( talk) 08:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Bobrevert, there is no undue weight here and that's not the argument. All of the relevant sources mention that he is a Holocaust-survivor before mentioning his name. There is no reason for Wikipedia to not also mention that.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This page has obviously become a war-ground about subjective opinion regarding Jeremy Corbyn. The most glaring problem is that a simple google search on any random day of the week brings up multiple stories about accusations of anti-semitism leveled against Corbyn. As is clearly spelled out in various policies such as wp:balance and wp:npov the page should reflect that. Instead the discussion devolves into a cirurcular debate about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite. Balance means that major and repeated stories in the mainstream media need to be reflected accordingly. Ben133 ( talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There should be a link to /info/en/?search=Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party in the See also section, as is clearly practice based on Boris Johnson's See Also section.
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.-- DeFacto ( talk). 08:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Corbyn received up to 20k from Press TV and this shows in the register of members' interests, but the links are to articles about the figure in register of members' interests rather than the actual register of members' interests, which shows that the figure was up to 10k. Why are secondary sources being used when there is a primary source that contradicts them? See the following link for a primary source showing the register of member's interests does not show Corbyn receiving up to 20k from Press TV https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10133. 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 13:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Below is a logical and sourced argument for why the line "for which he was paid up to £20,000, according to the register of members' interests at the House of Commons" should not appear on the article. If anyone thinks any of my premises are incorrect or any of my conclusions don't follow please let me know. Otherwise I'd be obliged if someone could update the article:
Thank you 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 08:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Editors usually follow Wikipedia's guidance on terminology, I suppose, so just to point out that Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that: 'The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Jontel ( talk) 19:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Do other editors think his position on this is notable enough for the lede? The current content is:
In August 2019, Corbyn outlined a plan to prevent a no-deal Brexit, which involved holding a no-confidence vote in the government and forming a temporary caretaker government. He would then campaign for a "public vote on the terms of leaving the European Union, including an option to Remain". [1] [2]
Thoughts? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 18:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Yes, because it is huge and of extended duration, already running for three years of his four years in office. More content on it is required in 5.4 or 4.5 and some sort of summary of his engagement with the issue put in the lead. The current sentence in the lead is too specific. Jontel ( talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Jeremy Corbyn's A-level grades were discussed earlier here: [1]. Nevertheless, the article incorrectly states now that '[Jeremy Corbyn] achieved two A-Levels, at grade E, the lowest-possible passing grade, before leaving school at 18'. Grade E is the lowest possible passing grade only since 2002. From 1963 to 1986 grade O was the lowest possible and grade E was the next-to-lowest [2]. Also the article that is put as a source to the very incorrectly statement: [3] goes as: '...former Prime Minister John Major joked that Corbyn performed better than him – because he got O-levels'. I am updating the article with this correction. A.I.K. ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence: ‘Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, and supporting Jewish communal initiatives.’ The last (italicized) clause has a footnote refence to https://www.jewishtelegraph.com/alderman.html, but the linked article makes no mention of Corbyn. So I’m deleting both the clause and the footnote reference. - Aingotno ( talk) 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone edit the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285)" as this is factually incorrect.
When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion. 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting the line "He also said that the money received (US$26,285) was "not an enormous amount"" be amended to the "He also said that the money received was "not an enormous amount"". My reasons for this are stated in full on the Talk page. In short, a source says the amount is in the Register Of Member's Financial Interests, but the actual Register and the website theyworkforyou.com do not show the amount claimed.
When discussing what is in the Register Of Members' Financial Interest, the actual Register takes precedent over what is reported by a third party (see WP:USINGPRIMARY, WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). There was a previous debate over this in the Talk page and it was agreed that the reference to the amount should be removed, so it should not have been readded without discussion.
Thank you 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that this has been discussed before, but there is room for improvement. I propose replacing:
with
This is much shorter, more elegant and addresses the point more directly. It is rather clumsy to use the same word three times in two sentences, which also gives it unwarranted emphasis. It doesn't mention past associations, but these are subordinate to the issue of the party. Jontel ( talk)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Corbyn has won two peace prizes so far, which only received secondary coverage in the Camden New Journal so far. It seems unreasonable to include this in the lede, especially when it doesn't mention (for example) the breakaway of Labour MPs complaining about his leadership. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@ JJARichardson: removed the sentence about the peace prizes from the lead, saying that it was WP:PEACOCK. I agree, given the lack of secondary coverage. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 12:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thirteen MPs (Field, Berger, Coffey, Gapes, Lewis, Leslie, Shuker, Smith, Umunna, Ryan, Austin, Mann and Ellman) have resigned from Labour due to concerns over Corbyn's leadership. Should we mention this in the lead? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative In considering this, we might consider whether it is distinctive i.e. have many more MPs resigned the whip than have done under other leaders. I suspect we will find that a number of MPs have resigned under other leaders. A second consideration is whether their resignations were over a major policy point. In reality, some mentioned Brexit, some antisemitism, some were facing deselection and the context was that much of the PLP are hostile to Corbyn anyway and were attracted by the prospects of a centrist grouping. A third, perhaps most important consideration is whether their departure prompted a major policy shift or adversely affected Labour's prospects. This is hard to assert. Labour has always asserted its opposition to antisemitism. On Brexit, its policy has arguably not greatly shifted or, if it has, it is due to multiple pressures. On Labour's prospects, the Change group failed and Labour's and Corbyn's decline in support can be ascribed to its Brexit policy and media coverage rather than their departure per se. In conclusion, I would say include it in the article but not the lead. Jontel ( talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative I doubt you could express it in such a way that it is both neutral and summarises the part it plays in the body of the article proportionately. ← ZScarpia 12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: We have a section describing the resignation of 7 MP's over "Corbyn's handling of Brexit and of allegations of anti-semitism". Are there sources saying that Corbyn's leadership was the factor in all 12 resignations? I haven't looked at all the resignations. The one article I read about Ellman implied she resigned to avoid being triggered by her local members. Her letter of resignation apparently said she would not support a Corbyn government but the article did not give further details. Burrobert ( talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Negative - This isn't relevent and leadworthy to this page. If it needs to go anywhere, it should go on the Labour page. RevertBob ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this duplicate word in the section " Allegations of antisemitism": "several of the signatories had themselves been been accused of antisemitism" 81.96.15.89 ( talk) 00:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we describe the media as being "hostile" or "negative" (or another word)? Bellowhead678 ( talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the proposition to be voted on is whether the wording should remain: 'Media coverage of Corbyn is generally hostile.' Jontel ( talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
1) Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism. { http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn} { https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html}
2) More than forty senior academics have written to the Guardian to condemn what they see as an anti-Corbyn bias in media coverage of the antisemitism debate. The letter condemns journalism that “so blatantly lacks context, perspective and a meaningful range of voices in its determination to condemn Jeremy Corbyn”, saying the media has weaponized antisemitism against Corbyn ahead of important elections. [3]
3) The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Overall, we found 95 clear cut examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting on mainstream television and online news platforms, with a quarter of the total sample containing at least one such example. The problem was especially pronounced on television – which reaches far wider audiences by comparison – where two thirds of the news segments on television contained at least one reporting error or substantive distortion. [4] Jontel ( talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Yes, I'd be happy with unfavourable. Bellowhead678 ( talk) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Diane Abbott told the Sunday Times in November 2015 that she and Corbyn never went to East Germany - they went to the South of France (confusion may have arisen because there is a reference to the bike being East German).
See https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-ukipper-in-last-ditch-stand-at-doomed-odeon-a3110046.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-seeks-up-to-pound5000-for-speech-2zdvjrwklh6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoGraffiti ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence describing the Chakrabati report, please included the following; The Jewish community, including the Chief Rabbi and Board of Deputies of British Jews were united in calling the Chakrabati Inquiry a "whitewash".
[1] TeaTree 09:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
References
He worked for press tv but i think it is deleted Baratiiman ( talk) 05:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
as I see it there is no actual evidence Papadopoulos had dinner with Corbyn. In the photographs there is take-out at Corbyn's side of the table. It's also unlikely that Papadopoulos, a vegan, would be having dinner at a restaurant with no vegan options. I would propose changing it to "having been photographed with Papadopoulos at a restaurant" instead of "having dinner with". -- 1Veertje ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would someone please add the template which says that the subject of the article is involved in a current event and information may change rapidly? There's a similar template at the top of 2019 United Kingdom general election; I'm aware of the desired "change X to Y" format but I can't seem to remember this template's name. 49.36.11.111 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 49.36.11.111 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo 11:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)This claim has no source or citation. It should be removed until there is a reliable source to support this claim. or at least we should ask for a reliable source. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/79.182.229.174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.229.174 ( talk) 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you should check out this study [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor recently requested that we add references at a few points in the lead and provided a reference to wiki policy to support the request. The policy seemed to fit the situation so the relevant references were added. A second editor has now removed these for a reason that I didn't understand and that does not seem to relate to the first editors concerns. Can we make a decision please about whether references are required at the points indicated by the first editor. It has the potential for being a big time-waster. Burrobert ( talk) 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Corbyn has NEVER referred to himself as a 'democratic socialist'. Please remove this incorrect line from the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.153.203 ( talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Corbyn gained two A levels at E grade which meant he could not go to University. A Polytechnic at that time did not run degree courses. It would have been national certificate/diploma or Gity & Guilds. At Best he could have got an ONC/OND or City & Guilds as his A level grades would not get him on an HNC/HND course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.110.155 ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As the proud owner of a Polytechnic degree I can tell you that your assertion about polys - that it was not possible to study for degrees at them - is wrong. What is true, though, is that degrees were not awarded by the polys themselves but rather by the Council for National Academic Awards, which was abolished in 1992 when the polys were awarded university status, and with it the power to confer degrees themselves. Either way, it's true that Corbyn left NLP with no qualification of any kind, degree or otherwise. MFlet1 ( talk) 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, you have removed two paragraphs that have been discussed and there are RfCs to include them( 1 and 2).-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Defenders, including Jewish Voice for Labour, have cited his record of opposing and campaigning against racism and antisemitism, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and supporting Jewish communal initiatives. [8]-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The fixation on "hostile media coverage" seems utterly meaningless and highly POV to me. All Labour leaders get negative press coverage, even Blair was described as a danger to Britain, closet Marxist and so on. JJARichardson ( talk) 11:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
"Allegedly" is outdated, the Saudis have admitted long ago that Jamal was killed inside the embassy and it is a fact. There is no one denying that Jamal was killed inside the Saudi embassy. See
[2] Saudi officials admitted last week that the U.S.-based dissident was killed inside the building.
--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk) 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Under further reading the biography by Tom Bower is listed. Should this be removed after The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline who serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology for publishing the “grotesque” allegations in the book? 80.47.137.128 ( talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)