he Telegraph and The Daily mail, but there are many more (see, e.g: [1], [2], [3][4]). The Telegraph article explicitly says "Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that 9/11 was "manipulated" to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible to allow the West to go to war in Afghanistan." - which is what I put in the article . Can the editors removing this sourced information explain why they are doing so? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And because Corbyn does not appear to have claimed anything of the sort, even then. Yes, the Telegraph article suggests that in the headline and first paragraph, but it then goes on to quote the 2003 Morning Star piece it is relying on in more detail – in which Corbyn says, "After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made ... This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan". That is not him saying that blame was fraudently assigned to bin Laden. The Telegraph, whose editorial line is incredibly hostile to Corbyn, can choose to insinuate that that was what Corbyn implied (and other papers can choose to recycle the suggestion) but there is no reason for Corbyn's WP page to follow that line. The media can be a good source for basic facts, but that doesn't mean pages here have to follow, or even reflect, partisan media commentary and assertion based on those facts. This isn't a hit piece. N-HHtalk/edits20:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this crap from the Daily Telegraph is totally unacceptable and the most serious violation of WP:BLP. Despite what the Telegraph maliciously implied he did not say blame was wrongly or falsely apportioned to bin Laden, as other say above. Mentioning one line from a 12 year old newspaper article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOVAusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia ought never label a person a "truther" but The Telegraph is a reliable source for what Corbyn had written. Surely one could find a reliable source saying Corbyn has complex opinions about 9/11? From his comments in Parliament, it appears he pretty much distrusts the military in general. Newspapers do, indeed, print "crap" but the issue is one of weight, not one of exclusion as being "crap." More troubling is the quote "“The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.” " which appears to be Conspiracy 101 stuff :(. [5] is sort of neat - it beseeches UK truthers to support Corbyn in the Labour election. Carefully worded, this has a lot better basis than "Piggate" to be sure. And a news article quoting a public person is not a BLP violation - it makes neither moral nor criminal allegations of any sort at all about Corbyn. Oh -- newspapers headlines in my experience often differ from the content of the article that they are pasted on to. Collect (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
completely undue, no basis for including this sort of thing. The Telegraph and Mail will be writing a story on everything that Corbyn was ever reported to have said and spinning it into a lurid story. This does not make for encyclopedic content. --ℕℱ23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undue? Surely a news story, in multiple venues, describing a major political leader's opinion of one of the major events of the 21st century is a s notable as the fact that he likes making jam? Or are we going to write this article as a hagiography? Wikipedia decides notability and due weight by the preponderance of reliable sources covering an event. This easily meets that standard. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph is quite clearly a reliable source, and I've listed half a dozen others, and could easily find half dozen more, kindly drop this bullshit. You are trying to argue for removal based on both that the story is 12 years old, and that it is "breaking news"? clutching at straws are we? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view. Telegraph has shown extraordinary bias regarding Corbyn. Express not a reliable source. Other sources simply restating the original story. How about you actually read WP:NOTNEWS, by the way. For example it states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person" and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". AusLondonder (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not just 'my view', it is the view of the Wikipedia community at large, as expressed by experienced editors on WP:RSN. You can check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163 for example, and note the comments by Itsmejudith, for example. And you are welcome to take this issue to RSN, again, but you don't get to disqualify a mainstream UK paper just 'cause you don;t like its editorial line. Other sources quoting or re-using the Telegraph article reinforces it reliability and importance, not the other way around. I've read WP:NOTNESW. Corbyn is neither a "celebrity" nor a "sport figure", and a politicians' opinion of one of the major events of the 21st century is on no way comparable to the results of a football match. As per the commnets belwo, both the NWO comment and the Bin Laden one have ben covered by numerous sources and are obviously notable. I will be adding them , reworded to carefully reflect the actual words used by Corbyn in 2003. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the NWO quote at least is notable yet agree that the issue has been spun by the sources above. I agree "Truther" or any other pejorative language should not be used and nor should this article promote fringe theories WP:FRNG. For me, the question is where the info (at least what we can determine as reliable) should go and what weight it should have. WykiP (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As with the bin Laden comment, the NWO quote has been spun out of all recognition by the Telegraph to suggest that Corbyn was talking about Illuminati conspiracy theories, when he said nothing of the sort. George Bush Sr used the phrase too (albeit in a positive sense) – it is/was a common term applied to the post-Cold War landscape by a wide range of people. The idea that we should not follow a newspaper's interpretation of either comment and not post them on this page as facts is not "bullshit" or "clutching at straws". Does the person arguing for inclusion really think this edit is even vaguely OK? Or understand how the media works in terms of shock headlines, editorial slant and lazy recycling of other outlets' stories? That said, a brief note of his views as expressed at the time, without the "Truther" sub-heading or media spin, and placed say where his opposition to the Afghan and Iraq wars is already covered, would be another thing. N-HHtalk/edits07:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re:"As with the bin Laden comment, the NWO quote has been spun out of all recognition by the Telegraph to suggest that Corbyn was talking about Illuminati conspiracy theories, when he said nothing of the sort."
This section requires deletion, it's only ever going to be opinion, and biased at that. A blairite says he is not electable and a right leaning british newspaper reporter opines Corbyn is tearing the party apart and he is unelectable , omg really, of course they do, that is their biased opinion, but such commentary is not reportable here in Corbyns biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem with electability is that it involves quite a lot of crystal-ball gazing. I think it would require a more reasoned explanation from a more objective source than that given.
However, Corbyn's unpopularity within his own Parliamentary party is entirely relevant and currently isn't mentioned that I can see. WykiP (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current press rumblings are also unworthy of reporting here, if he is voted down or there is some real problems within the party we can report that, if, or when it happens. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Press speculation about how long he might last is arguably unworthy of inclusion here, but you're entirely mistaken in your belief that well-sourced commentary on a particular prominent issue should be excluded altogether if the commentators are "biased". Wikipedia NPOV policy actually requires that articles 'fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'. I think it's beyond dispute that Corbyn has received a significant and unusual degree of criticism and noncooperation from senior members of his own party, and seeking to remove any reference to that solely because the prominent figures quoted have a "bias" would be just as POV an editorial approach as mining his history for unfortunate comments... Dtellett (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is primarily a life story, your comment "I think it's beyond dispute that Corbyn has received a significant and unusual degree of criticism and noncooperation from senior members of his own party" if you want to report something please show links here for discussion Govindaharihari (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected again about this electability section. It's just rubbish in my opinion in his biography and I oppose its inclusion completely, sure there are reports about all sorts of shite but we are not compelled to cover them here. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that reinstating an entire subsection devoted to his "electability" is the right thing to do, but I don't think we can omit any reference to any of the widespread doubt about Corbyn's ability to win election from the PLP and other senior party figures simply because that opinion isn't shared by his supporters. Or indeed any reference to the multiple refusals to serve in the Shadow Cabinet and unimpressive initial approval rating in opinion polls. Wikipedia certainly hasn't shied away from noting insubstantial but widespread criticisms of other politicians such as Menzies Campbell having been considered "too old". Reading the current article, one would get the impression the only real reaction to his election as leader was for the Guardian to say how good his PMQs were. It's something of an understatement to say that this is not particularly reflective of the balance of actual reaction to his leadership. The article might not have sufficient room for commentary as expansive as this [6], but it's a much better (reliable, third party, complete with balancing quotes from Corbyn) summary of his first weeks. Dtellett (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Meaningless. I'm not seeing much support for inclusion of the material in question. Suggest we SNOW close this discussion. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that several members of the existing front bench resigned and stated they would not serve under Corbyn is well attested, widely reported and a relatively unusual phenomenon in politics. Speculation (justified in some cases more than others) they would not have been offered a job anyway is not an argument against that. This is intended to be a biography, not a hagiography, and that means that, as with every other political figure, appropriately sourced and balanced discussion of widespread perceptions of significant challenges they face is appropriate. Dtellett (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't hagiography. It also isn't opinion and it isn't recentism. So what if several members of the front bench resigned? Arguing about who is or isn't electable is pure opinion. Polling booths decide if someone is electable. Not op-eds. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corbyn picks his shadow cabinet, some people saying they would not serve when they had not been asked to serve is not worthy of reporting in this article, they did not actually have a job to resign from. You could perhaps add it to their articles where it will be more relevant. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This edit request to Jeremy Corbyn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "Nationalism and devolution" section of the article currently reads:
...He controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984. A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party,[101][102] a move which the then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself from.[100]
It should be corrected to:
He controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984, a move which the then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself from.[100] A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party.[101][102]
The Labour leader in 1996 was Tony Blair, not Neil Kinnock, and reference [100] is an article from 1984.
I am unable to fix this myself, as only admins are currently allowed edit this article.
The discussion above 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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "Nationalism and devolution" section of the article currently reads:
...He controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984. A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party,[101][102] a move which the then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself from.[100]
It should be corrected to:
He controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984, a move which the then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself from.[100] A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party.[101][102]
The Labour leader in 1996 was Tony Blair, not Neil Kinnock, and reference [100] is an article from 1984.
Thanks, I have since discovered and used the edit request feature in the source code section, which has caused this request to be duplicated below. It would presumably help if the Submit Edit Request Button was also at the top of this Talk Page (but maybe it already is, and I just haven't noticed, in which case it may not be big enough and/or visible enough). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius, you could do that if you knew about it, but a user wishing to report an error typically won't know about it (as I didn't), so the top of this Talk Page should tell that user how to proceed. Indeed, given that this issue must have happened thousands of times before, I suspect there is a Template for that purpose which should have been added at the top of this Talk Page when this article was fully protected, but wasn't added. Alternatively, if no such Template exists, it would seem that it needs to be created, and/or the documentation on how to fully protect a page needs to be updated to say that such a Template needs to be included. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "Personal life" section, there are two non-existent links (to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cheese). Could an admin remove these please? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone suggest an alternative wording for the remaining information in that paragraph? Also, the cycling and cheese APPGs appear in the "Parliamentary career" section, so they would have to be removed from there as well. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪23:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Apparently the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cheese did exist, and he was a member - here is the 2013 membership. It seems not to exist now. The Parliamentary career list of groups lacks a source - the groups of which he now claims membership are listed here. So, best to add a {{cn}} tag to the end of the unsourced sentence. Re "Personal life" section, I now think it would be best simply to remove the hyperlink brackets. He still claims membership of the cycling group - which is probably unlikely to get its own article - and he was a member of the cheese group (again, unlikely to get an article), so the FT quote itself can remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request Personal life section: It is twice mentioned that he does not own a car.
Complaint Again in the personal life section: He has not described himself as "parsimonious" but as a "parsimonious MP". To be clear, he was not admitting to being a miser, but to saying he likes to keep his cost to the taxpayer to a minimum. Better still, this utterly pathetic mangling of the source is synthed with a quote from the Simon Hattenstone interview to drive home this phoney admission to parsimony. It is truly and utterly pathetic that this has made it into the article, but I guess stuff like this doesn't matter when it's a BLP font color="green" size="3px">ℕof a left-wing politician, right?
I endorse your frustrations. This article has been subject of much battleground behaviour, vandalism and disruptive editing. The constant restrictions which bar editors in good standing are particularly irritating AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware Murphy has never held any role within Corbyn's team, and indeed Corbyn/McDonnell have appointed a large independent economic advisory team and Murphy is not on it. I'm aware the phrasing comes direct from the source material, but wouldn't editors familiar with Murphy think that "Richard Murphy, regarded as an influence on Corbyn's economic plans" or similar wording might be a more appropriate description of his involvement? Dtellett (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(Source with Murphy confirming that despite acknowledged similarities in their economic ideas he "did not approach the Corbyn team" and describing their relationship as "acquaintances rather than close friends" [7]) Dtellett (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use what the strong reliable sources state as fact. Not what we "know to be fact." And the New Statesman column does not contradict that a person whose work is routinely used by someone might be considered an "adviser" as that term does not specifically imply a formal or official connection. Collect (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The source used - a US source - refers to "advisers" in a loose way which is confusing to those of us in the UK. It is clear from the New Statesman and elsewhere that Murphy is not an adviser to Corbyn in any way whatsoever - he may have influenced Corbyn, but that is not the same thing at all. We should not claim that the words used misleadingly by journalists (even if printed in a reliable source) are sacrosanct, when, in the UK context, they are plainly wrong and misleading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have reasonably reliable sources quoting Murphy explicitly saying that descriptions of him as an "adviser" are factually inaccurate [8] Hence why I proposed something along the lines of "regarded as an influence" (others are welcome to suggest better wordings) which is a reasonable paraphrase of the CNN article but not in dispute (as User:Collect effectively observed, there's no reason to assume the CNN article intended to imply the relationship was any stronger) Dtellett (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best if the sentence referring to Murphy were removed entirely. As he is not an adviser to Corbyn, there seems no reason for his views to be in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the rather important "according [to the] HMRC" is dropped when we quote from "Spending up to £300 million on staff could raise £8 billion extra, according to people I speak to at HMRC", which we are ascribing to Murphy. Murphy in his own words says "There's £34bn in the tax gap and we're going to try and recover £5bn or 6bn" in a [long interview in The Accountant. From my reading for the PQE article, it seems fair to call Murphy an adviser though. Rwendland (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a mention somewhere of his inaugural party conference speech? This article would be a good starting point as far as sources go, though unfortunately this is something I can't add myself since the page is protected'm unable to do myself since the page is protected. This is Paul (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite difficult to judge the historical significance of this speech yet, yes he made a debut speech at the conference, but what has it achieved? How was it received? --ℕℱ23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of just thinking of something along the lines of "He made his debut party conference speech as leader on 29 September 215, in which he said ...", which would be a relevant event to mention. Of course we won't know the significance of that speech yet. It could be several weeks/months/years before we do. This is Paul (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mabelina inserted inappropriate tabloid-style editorialising on the Privy Council issue. The comments where: "Following which he was tested regarding his Republican credentials as to whether he would follow protocol by kneeling before The Queen at his subsequent investiture (which is a private ceremony) by disingenuously muddling the whole issue by saying he is "yet to decide"" These remarks are in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As he made clear in this BBC interview, he has not joined the Council yet, nor, according to him, officially invited.
Please stop adding the Privy Council membership until he has officially joined. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with great respect, do you realise e are a neutral encylopaedia? Not the Daily Express? We don't accuse politicians of being disingenuous without a single source. AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AusLondonder - I have no intention whatsoever of making Wikipedia into The Daily Express, however it is beyond peradventure that Corbyn was being disingenuous in his interview with the BBC; the article was better phrased when I first mentioned it, but it has been changed so many times since as "perhaps" to lose context, for which I can only apologise. However, please be advised that he is a Privy Councillor and that his interview with the BBC was evasive to say the least. M Mabelina (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] PS. is Wiki worth fighting for when HM Government website unequivocally cites something & it is refuted?
Yea, ok. Let's not force him into a council that he has stated he isn't in, according to the telegraph, let's wait and see for the formal acceptance..will he kneel for the queen appears the important issue here. As a living person, using the weak claims to add him to the council against his comments appears undue and the moment and a current violation of WP:BLP - the telegraph references are one week old already without any confirmation. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* It is sourced from an official government announcement that says exactly that so it should not be removed. It is a fact as is and if you want to dispute that then open it for consensus. Until then I believe that edit is fair and is definitely well sourced. Look at the reference before removing content. 'Olowe2011Talk12:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Read the source as it completely confirms and supports my edit. I have not claimed that he accepted the title it simply says that the Queen accepted him for it - You could clarify that he has yet to accept the nomination if you can find well sourced material to support that but for the edit I have made - it is absolutely well sourced and referenced. 'Olowe2011Talk12:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An individual only becomes a member of the Privy Council following the official procedure. In spite of the statement from Number 10 (possibly mischievous) a number of sources indicate he is not a member (at least yet):
When someone has specifically refuted claims from political opponents (Downing Street) why would we take the word of the opponents above all these over sources, including the living person themselves? AusLondonder (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] AusLondonder's aforementioned statement beggars belief - whilst the Conservative Party can be construed as political opponents of the Labour Party, it is quite incredible to suggest that the Government plays mischief with formal announcements (& by extension, somehow, Wiki's authority is greater than Her Majesty's Government); perhaps you could clarify whether this is what you meant to say, AusLondonder? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: - OK. So maybe it is mischievous. What do you have against attributing the factoid to 10 Downing Street? Let the reader decide for themselves how reliable the source is. NickCT (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:NickCT, I don't specifically oppose that, but I do wonder whether it is necessary. Firstly, it is more than likely he will end up joining the Privy Council. Secondly, if we add political manoeuvring from one side we will presumably have to include his response in the BBC interview. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without being too naive about the politicisation of government machinery, especially at the centre, the announcement from Downing Street would be from the civil service, not the Tory party. Also what it says does not technically contradict anything else that is out there anyway: it merely says the Queen has approved his [impending] appointment, without confirming that he has actually, formally joined. Kind of like air traffic control clearing a plane for take-off. The only point is whether that approval on its own is worth noting. N-HHtalk/edits10:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: - re "have to include his response in the BBC interview." - I'm a bit confused. In reading the BBC interview, I don't see anything Corbyn said that would refute the 10 Downing St announcement. If there were two sides to the story, I'd agree we have to include both, but I'm not seeing the two sides.
re "it is more than likely he will end up joining the Privy Council" - So give the factoid with attribution now, then remove the attribution once we have more reliable sourcing later.
@Nomoskedasticity: - Thanks for feeling the need to chime in. Attributing facts to particular sources when the you are uncertain of the veracity of the fact is a very common practice throughout journalism and is explicitly called for by a number of books and guidelines relating to ethical journalism. Thanks for your thoughts though. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're quite welcome. The thing is, we're not doing journalism. So if there's doubt about the veracity of a "fact", it's better (for an encyclopedia) to leave it out. Incidentally, the quotation marks reveal a failure of logic here (or at least of language)... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: - True we're not doing journalism. I brought up the journalism slant because you mentioned it initially.
The rationale for the practice in journalism applies equally well to us here. Relaying facts is always better than rumors or speculation in a news article or encyclopedia. But both news articles and encyclopedia's will occasionally deliver "non-factual" content. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, without membership in that council, he would not be able to view certain state documents at all - which means he would be then highly ineffective in opposition if he does not even get to know what is actually at stake in any government discussions. It is possible he would wish to so handicap himself that he would have no idea what he would be favouring or opposing, but I rather think it likely that he would wish to be "in the loop." [9]Collect (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:NickCT, Corbyn says in the BBC interview: "I haven't yet been invited to join the Privy Council". (Interviewer: Downing Street says you have) Corbyn: "They have, but I haven't seen any letters. I'm looking forward to seeing the letter and finding out what's involved" (Interviewer:When you accept, or are you clear you will accept the invitation?) Corbyn: "If it goes with the job, yes. But I'm not sure it does" Plus latest from The Guardian: Corbyn yet to decide
User:Collect, I don't think it is quite the case that "he would have no idea what he would be favouring or opposing". The Privy Council has no legislative role. Other party leaders (Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP Commons leader etc) aren't granted membership. AusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Membership in it is seemingly required to see certain "secret government documents" - if one can not read or obtain a document legally, it becomes a non-trivial exercise to figure out what is in the document. The Opposition Leader is generally considered the only likely person to unseat a current PM, and if he were to do so and have absolutely no idea what the government has been doing, he would have a bit of a handicap. In many places, "secret briefings" are given to major candidates for president, PM etc. and the UK system is to use PC. By the way, the PC is fairly large if one sees it official membership list. The PC is actually to his real benefit. Collect (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I were so inclined, I would have a very large bet that Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, and Corbyn's team are having discussions about how to ensure that Corbyn is accepted into the PC without any side being able to claim that anyone has backed down. (Of course, some of the media will claim he's made a U-turn, but that's normal). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to keep the page updated as to every detail, we could add something from yesterday's Guardian piece in which he says he hasn't yet been formally invited and that he is still wondering about whether to genuflect or not. As noted, that doesn't actually contradict the Downing St announcement as worded so the debate about what is "fact" or "verifiable", and whether the no10 announcement is trustworthy, is a bit moot. N-HHtalk/edits09:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Having this article uneditable is infuriating. So much rubbish in it.
This sentence in personal life: "In 1974, Corbyn married Jane Chapman, a then-fellow Labour Councillor for Haringey and university lecturer." Can it be slightly reworded to this? "In 1974, Corbyn married Jane Chapman, who was then a fellow Labour Councillor for Haringey and a university lecturer." Perhaps a bit less clumsy.
Also this line, again in personal life: "a Mexican émigrée who runs a fair trade coffee importing business." Can it be slighted reworded to "a Mexican émigrée who runs a fair-trade coffee import-business." The terminology is import/export, rather than importing/exporting.
Also this sneering line in the FT that is, yet again, in personal life: "He loves making jam with fruit grown on his allotment, belongs to the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cheese and is a borderline trainspotter." "Trainspotter" here is quite transparently being used as a belittling smear, what with its negative connotations, and it will be observed that only (the only major outlets that came up in my Google search) The Daily Mail and government TV (i.e. Tory TV, the BBC) picked up this snippy line in the FT. Corbyn is not a trainspotter—that is all there is to it, because what is a borderline trainspotter? Someone who takes camera, pen, and paper to tick off and photo trains, but then pulls themselves together at the last moment and doesn't go through with it?
Hadn't noticed that before re "borderline" trainspotter. Your way of describing it "Someone who takes camera, pen, and paper to tick off and photo trains, but then pulls themselves together at the last moment and doesn't go through with it" definitely made me smile AusLondonder (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been tempted, but I can imagine the sense of relief felt by someone who *was* tempted and managed to get themselves to a pub and get hammered like other normal people... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The labour party logo cannot be used on this page as it is non-free and there is no reasonable fair use justification. Please remove and do not re-add it. I think this isn't the first time this copyvio has been introduced here. --ℕℱ21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice some tabloid sources creeping into this article; an interview Corbyn gave to the Mirror springs to mind. We should endeavour to replace these with sources from quality newspapers as soon as possible. Having taken a couple of politics articles through GAN I know the use of tabloids is discouraged, and ultimately as leader of the opposition we should aim to get Corbyn's article to GA standard. This is Paul (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The DM and other non-Red-Top papers are generally good on basic facts, and poor on celebrity gossip. Heck, that is true of The Guardian etc. as well. Collect (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Mail is a reliable source for any biography, whether political, celebrity or otherwise, but there are instances in which I would cite it–an article about a television show for example. Two or three years back I got an article about a recent murder case which used several Mail cites through FAC. When it was nominated for TFA last year I was asked if I could replace them with better sources. It took some doing but I managed it after a couple of days research. Generally for something like the article mentioned above, there are plenty of other right leaning newspapers to choose from that were equally as critical of yesterday's speech. This is Paul (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "tabloid bad, broadsheet good" thing is a bit of an oversimplification. As the sourcing policy says, at WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:NEWSORG, context matters and sourcing should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Supposedly quality papers can do gossip, pithy columns and lazy simplification just as well as tabloids sometimes, and tabloids can, occasionally, do serious reporting. With reference to the Mirror piece here, as noted when people tried to remove this previously, it is an interview with Corbyn conducted by that paper's political editor. It is as good and reliable a source for what Corbyn has said about issue X as any similar interview conducted for a broadsheet. It is a better source re Corbyn's drinking habits (or at least what he has said about them) than the lazily recycled epithet "teetotal" – which I doubt was ever scrupulously fact-checked, at the BBC, Guardian or anywhere else it might have appeared. N-HHtalk/edits09:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "tabloid bad, broadsheet good" thing is laughable. The only difference is the papers target audience, not the inherent bias, prejudice or political agenda of the title or the intelligence of it's production team.. 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a fair generalization that the broadsheets are more reliable than tabloids, but even broadsheets - especially right-wing ones - can fall into lazy stereotyping when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn. Only the other day we had the Times reporting that Corbyn likes riding his "Chairman Mao-style bicycle" - presumably that's when he's not at home sitting on his Che Guevara settee or eating his Stalinist dinner. MFlet1 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "tabloid bad, broadsheet good" thing isn't laughable for anything more contentious than a quote from a friendly interview because UK tabloids have a history of publishing rumours they know to be false and have been known to literally dare the subjects of the article into suing them. Obviously broadsheets are no more free from political agenda and narrative slant, but the openly anti-Corbyn Telegraph, for example, didn't run the Sun and the Mail's "Corbyn gave money to man who said he was an IRA bomber" story, presumably on the basis that cursory fact checking revealed it was debunked in 1987. The Mail's version even appeared to acknowledge they were aware the original story had been retracted). Even academic political scientists frequently write with a political agenda, but they're a lot more discerning about what they'll publish than the Sun.
I have reduced the protection of this page, as I do not think ongoing full protection is the way forwards on such a currently high profile and important topic, where only a small minority have been engaged in edit warring. I am therefore expanding the BLP discretionary sanctions for this topic as follows:
To be clear, this means that from now on edit warring will be dealt with by blocks of increasing duration of those involved, rather than by shutting everyone out of editing the page. WJBscribe(talk)10:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WJBScribe: If you really believe that I have to conclude you simply don't understand 1RR. If two inexperienced editors add separate examples of questionable material to this article in a day, as a user I will be prevented from sorting it out. This is a very high profile article due to the intense media focus on this subject during the Labour Party Conference. It is a really lazy solution without looking at the behaviour of the editors that are causing the problems - it is all there in the history --ℕℱ10:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the sanctions are causing problems, we can look at them again, but this is preferable to having the page protected altogether. This page is watched by a lot of people, if problematic content is added you will not be the only person on hand to remove it. Please also note that 1RR does not apply to fixing obvious BLP violations. WJBscribe(talk)10:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WJBScribe: if that were true then why have gross insults like "borderline trainspotter" been kept for so long in the article. I'm telling you that this is already a problem, and users should not have to gamble their block log on esoteric definitions of what is and isn't a BLP violation or vandalism. Can you explain clearly what the problem is that you are trying to stop? How widespread is it really? How many users did it involve? The only thing that has stopped another user in good standing today from breaching this rule is that there was no intervening edit --ℕℱ10:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*There is now a very clear breach of the 1RR sanctions in place by @Mabelina: - see diff and diff, what even, if anything, is to be done about this @WJBscribe: - the issue was discussed at length above, and the editor is editing against consensus --ℕℱ 01:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC) now self-reverted --ℕℱ01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nonsenseferret - your remarks above are noted and I too am seeking guidance. Like you I take such matters seriously and I have seen the lengthy discussions to which you refer but unless I am thoroughly mistaken, none of these counter the veracity of the UK Govt's announcement. I await further comment and sincerely hope that some incisive thought can be made on this matter, rather than keeping going round in circles - please review my comments and let's discuss further, as necessary, so as to reach an equitable conclusion to what has become a rather unnecessarily protracted matter. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have undertaken the discussion to seek consensus before you made the reversions to the page. I would recommend self-reverting the most recent change you have made, since you are clearly in breach of the editing restrictions. It doesn't matter how right you feel your case is - you cannot make two reversions in a day without breaching that. --ℕℱ01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done as you asked & I have made concerted efforts to seek consensus but seemingly to no avail. In fact, you may glean that particularly having spent the evening with some quite high-powered lawyers who concur regarding the PC issue, it is becoming somewhat of a joke that Wikipedians are impeding progress in this way. If so much time is expended reverting articles to being incorrect such as here, what is happening on other topics that you & I know nothing about? It doesn't fill me with confidence yet I am trying wholeheartedly (as are you) to ensure Wiki is accurate. Let's seek resolution, please - await yours. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I don't understand the point of value of it either. WP is not an etiquette guide for purportedly formal modes of address and what information is really added anyway by listing variations on his name, without and then with "MP" after it etc? And was he really known, from the moment he was born in 1949, as "Mr. Jeremy Bernard Corbyn"? I imagine he was "Jeremy" as a child and now, as an adult, has always been "Jeremy Corbyn" to most people, regardless of what job he was doing at the time. Anyway, these kinds of sections seem to be popular on other politicians' pages, so I guess there are people that like them. N-HHtalk/edits10:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As well as being unnecessary and very silly, the section is wholly unsourced, and given the controversy over whether he is or isn't a "Rt. Hon", it's contentious. Per WP:BLP the section should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
We really can't let the current picture of Corbyn stand. Other major British politicians (such as David Cameron) have professional, posed, and quite possibly retouched, photos, and we have an exceptionally unflattering picture of Corbyn, shot in harsh lighting, in high contrast, from a bad angle, etc. etc. Unfortunately, external observers might form the impression that this is somehow a partisan choice: while not true, even the impression of this makes Wikipedia look bad. Is this a case for reaching out to the community to see if we can get someone to take a decent photo of Corbyn, or indeed for those who have contacts in the Labour Party to get someone to CC-license an existing photo? If so, how do we go about doing it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think too much red is part of the prob in the "reddish one". That red has been added from the original, so it could be toned down quite easily. Rwendland (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Image 2 was the consensus" -- who says? At this point, I think it's necessary to leave it alone until either we get a new image or there's a proper RfC closed by an uninvolved editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: - Image 2 clearly had more support than image 1. If you want to show otherwise, you can open an RfC or re-poll. But regardless, we all seem to agree that we need a new image. Let's put our heads together and focus on finding a better picture.
The current photo is fine if no other free alternative can be found. It captures Corbyn with a natural facial expression rather than a concentrating one during a speech. Besides, isn't the reddish tint politically appropriate? JJARichardson (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the whole image is 'red' so a bit hard to fix, I did fix most..if it was a higher quality, i could have done a better job...--Stemoc14:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good-faith BLP assertion -- it shows the subject in a disparaging light. No such claim is being made about the image you are rejecting. If you don't revert it yourself, then I'll do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why not just work with us to do what all agree needs to be (i.e. finding a new image)? Why squabble over which of these images is least bad? NickCT (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: - You are the only person who has raised the BLP concern. You have two people telling you you're wrong. BLP isn't some kind of word of god you can just invoke anytime you see something you don't like. I'm working on the report. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: - Mate. I hate WP:WIKILAWYERING and I'd really prefer not to report. This behavior is a little beyond the pale though. Please restore our image and then work with us to find an alternative we can all live with. Having no image simply won't do. I'll give you 30 minutes to restore, then I'm reporting. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to do that. No image is fine for now -- certainly better than one that disparages the subject. Sorry. Let's hope we can get a suitable one soon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment at the noticeboard which brought me here, but both pictures that I have seen are poor, and could be deemed disparaging. I'd also much rather no picture for the time being than either of them. There must be better somewhere. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: - Agree both are poor. I think it's a stretch to call "Image 2" disparaging though. We're actively working on finding another.
I think no image is probably worse than image 2. Major political figures almost always have an image. Not having any image for Corbyn seems so unusual as to potentially rise to the level of WP:BLP violation itself. NickCT (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Of course we need to have an image - as quickly as possible. Any of the three suggested ones look fine to me - personally I prefer the one that has not been tinted - and I'll support whichever one raises the fewest fair use concerns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: - I'm neutral on that image. I think the hat looks a little silly. I'd still prefer Image 2. But if others are OK with the hat image, we could go with it for now. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jeremy Corbyn.jpg is better than nothing. I thought I read here that someone was contacting his office, or the party, to get a better one. Yes? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Remember that Jeremy has no more say in this than any of us. He may well be a fashion icon, but the sixties is thataway, and nobody should be included in this encyclopaedia subject to that indignity. This guy may be the replacement for wotshisname - and could be PM soon, and who knows, as successful as Thatcher. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: - re "Jeremy has no more say in this than any of us." - Agree. But if we all agree that there are no good images, and Jeremy can provide us with a good image, it seems reasonable that we ask him for an image. NickCT (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm actually saying that I agree, lets ask him for a decent photo. Bear in mind that as a sixties fashion icon, he still wears that hat. We shouldn't let his poor judgement in this area give us the OK to disparage him. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, and yes, I'm trying to make light of this, but I object highly to Cambriweather's edit, and inaccurate edsum when restoring that disparaging pic, and protecting the page. Shameful. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you're joking or agreeing with me? The picture is also eight years old, not even recent, I do not see why is had to be edit warred into the biography under objections, it is indeed a rubbish photo for his infobox, I totally agree with that position of User:Nomoskedasticity.Govindaharihari (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better to have no photo than that one which is definitely one his political opponents would choose. Stop messing around with this article. --ℕℱ18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
- please remove the photograph until such times as there is consensus on which photo to use - there is no such consensus at the moment and the existing photo is controversial. --ℕℱ19:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I agree that version looks horrible - it's distorted and squashed. If we are using that photo, the unmodified version was far, far better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like that because it's been recently cropped, but the server hasn't caught up with it yet so it's still trying to display it at its old aspects. It will look ok once the server catches up with the recent changes. You might sort it by clearing your cache. G-13114 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We can't seriously have no photograph of him in the infobox for crying out loud! This is starting to get ridiculous. This is making wikipedia look ridiculous! G-13114 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We should only add a photograph when there is a consensus that it is an appropriate photograph. Having an image is not compulsory. --ℕℱ20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis was the last photo removed - [10] ? "As per talk page"... !! The only thing for which there is an almost complete consensus here is that having a photo - any photo - is less ridiculous than having no photo at all. Of course it's not "compulsory" - it just makes us look absurd and amateurish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, that photo was removed on the basis that there are objections to its inclusion and is no talkpage agreement or consensus to include it - as regard to your comment that no pic makes us look absurd and amateurish, well, take a step back, wikipedia is absurd and amateurish. There is no time limit, a good photo will arrive soon. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The basis that it was objected to and clearly had no consensus. Wikipedia is amateur, but that is neither here nor there. It is clearly illogical to say any photo is better than no photo. --ℕℱ20:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any free use photo of Corbyn is better than no photo of Corbyn - because it shows what he looks like. Some photos are better than other photos, but ultimately any free use photo will do (and we don't need his approval for it). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. We won't be uploading any pictures of him in the bath with his yellow rubber duckies, even if they are free to use. --ℕℱ20:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we all step back and have a big reality check here...... We cannot seriously have a wikipedia article of this level of profile. On one of the most high profile politicians in the UK, the leader of the opposition, and leader of one of the two main political parties, a politician who has recieved wordwide attention. And not have a profile photograph of him!...... Even if the photograph used is less than brilliant it is about 1000 times better than having none at all! And no doubt some better photos of him will arrive in due time, so any used now will be a stopgap. G-13114 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. To claim that a slightly unflattering - but accurate, untouched, unphotoshopped - image of him was a "BLP issue" justifying its removal, was absurd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having not participated in this ludicrous discussion, I am embarrassed by reading it now. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn would be this precious over an image of him? He is a politician, not a model. He has deplored the personality-style politics pushed by so many. I never understood what was wrong with most of the photos, really. What was wrong with the image to the right? Oh, no he's smiling, he's thinking about taxing the rich? Oh, no he is wearing a suit, but it isn't black? Oh, no his tie is red, the colour of the Soviet Union?
FWIW, I think the "Image 2" is clearly the least suitable for the infobox. I don't have a strong preference among the others, but the image on the right will do fine until a better one appears. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Someone objected to it as a violation of WP:MUG, which doesn't make sense to me. If there's a popular view that we must have a poor image rather than no image at all, I can't see why the one on the right wouldn't do the job or now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the WP:MUG comment was ludicrous. That policy states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed". How anyone used that policy in this context leaves me speechless. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress asking Corbyn campaign to release a photo
Is anyone making good progress in asking the Corbyn campaign to release a photo under an appropriate license? I have a senior (but busy!) email contact I could try approaching, but would not want to duplicate effort if this is already in progress. Rwendland (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was consensus to use this image as a stopgap image, there is also consensus to use the improved one. The majority opinion is that this photo is the best available until a new and better one could be found. The minority had the opinions about the quality and pose for the picture. AlbinoFerret15:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: should the photo on the right be used as a temporary/stop-gap photo until a more suitable option can be found? 09:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes -- it is the least worst of those available. It would be desirable to come to a quick consensus on the matter so that the article is not left with no main image. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - it is awful. Out of focus (noticeable since cropped from a larger image), ghastly orange glow, unfortunate facial expression that means the photo is not even typical of the subject. The lighting is also from the wrong direction for a portrait so a lot of the face is in shadow, further distorting the appearance --ℕℱ09:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, extreme side eye, a portrait in which the subject is not looking at the camera and to the extreme side is a well known stragegy for making people look shifty and unreliable. --ℕℱ12:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely asking for the RfC to be phrased neutrally. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider there is any bad faith on Nomoskedasticity's part. At least we are now on the road to working out a clear consensus. NSH001 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will support any of the images mentioned, other than image 2, which is clearly the least suitable for the infobox. I think Jonpatterns's remix is, so far, the best of those available. --NSH001 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NSH001: - I think Jon did a great job clearing up a number of the issues with the original photograph. I'd still prefer image 2, but I'm not opposed to Jon's. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that "unfortunate facial expression" is what some people call "a smile." Acceptable quality for a stop-gap (despite that dreadful "dismantle Trident" lapel badge). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "shifty looking eyes"! - you do know he's a politician, don't you? [reply]
Comment. Current !!voting!! is 6 for, 2 against, using the photo as a temporary/stop-gap photo until a more suitable option can be found. The article has now been unprotected (quite rightly). So, I propose actioning it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes We can all agree that it's not ideal, but it'll do for the time being until we get our hands on something better. Having that is vastly better than having no photograph at all. G-13114 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Looks like a photo of a cardboard cut-out at a video store due to excess "sharpening" <g>. And makes the poor guy look quite as bald as Edward VII. Collect (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand what the fuss is about. Both photos works until we receive one from the Labour Party. I can not see what harm the photo now used (or the proposed) would do. However the proposed photo is much more politics-ish than the one now used (the one with the black hat). Sure, he seems happy and it looks like he is heading towards the sea (it has personality), meanwhile David Cameron's picture lacks that and looks like he belongs in the finance sector. I really have no strong opinion on this matter and it surprises me how controversial Jeremy Corbyn is. He is a social democratic politician. You can not become more non-controversial than that as a politician. Really. Dnm (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this image as the main until we perhaps get a free use formal portrait. The best facial profile we have for now. The hat image is high quality but is much more dated and only a side profile. JJARichardson (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against using the top photo. The majority of responders did not like the photo and preferred others. There is no consensus for using any of the photos added afterwards. There was no agreement that was reached in the discussions as opinions on them differed and no clear choice emerged. AlbinoFerret15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting for the RfC above which offered only the image supported by the nominator, should we use the image to the right as infobox image?
I suppport the use of the photo on the right here. The current one in the infobox is from 2007, as far as I can see – well before the so-called Corbynmania which made him famous. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email)19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't work for me as a main image. We already have a none cropped version of it and it more appropriately exhibits Corbyn's role as a participant in protests rather than as a profile for the top of the article. It's grin or hat for me. JJARichardson (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although it is better than nothing but not as good as the photo discussed above. The architecture behind is distracting and he looks glum. The microphone does not bother me as it does not conceal any part of his face. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my comments in earlier sections. This one is so bad that any of the alternatives being discussed is better (including the "black hat" one). NSH001 (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded some new photos to commons from youtube videos that I think are using CC licences correctly. None are perfect but people may prefer them. JMiall₰18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link the actual videos here and allow us to check them out, thanks - Are you claiming that anything uploaded to youtube is cc and good to use for free on wikipedia and anywhere? Like this video ,https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIXdcLR0pF2Yhic0odZR0nQ the link is not the primary publisher of the video and as such can not release it under any license - all those pics are simple copyright violations Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've cropped JMiall's 2 and 3 to a suitable shape for the infobox, see above. I've looked at both in the infobox, and both look OK, though 2crop would be a bit better with a some more black space above his hair. Views? Rwendland (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He moves his head around a lot when talking making him blurry, shuts his eyes a lot and the camera doesn't always do a very good job of framing him so while sometimes there is more black space at the top I'm not sure how easy it'd be to get a good frame of this from that video. However as the picture is fairly monochromatic at the top it would be pretty easy to just add a block of (nearly) black and then blend over the boundary line (so it doesn't look odd for people with very bright screens). JMiall₰23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture shows him as having pink hair. I see from the discussion above that it is a retouched version of one showing red hair. His hair is white. Maproom (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could always comp the hat from the much-derided hat photo on top, and voila -- no more pink hair. On a more serious note, the "2crop" image works for me: although it does convey a stern ancient-Roman-era sensibility that the other pictures definitely don't. -- The Anome (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer 3crop as well. While 2crop has some nice arty quirkiness to it, I think a more normal shot is best for the infobox. As we don't seem to be getting far in this discussion, I wonder if we should call a vote, with all the photos laid out and named in a gallery. Rwendland (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We've had a photo that has been "stable" for a couple of days. To move towards adopting a more permanent photo, we'll need a procedure of some sort, not just a "bold" edit (e.g. this). If someone thinks there's a photo that would be suitable for that purpose, an RfC would be the way to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: - Given that there's no consensus for the current image, I think it's fine if people want to be bold and put in alternatives. Reading above I didn't see any opposition to the "2crop" image so I supposed it would be viable.
Comment - This RfC seems terribly ill advised. It's either poor judgement or an attempt to game the system. @Nomoskedasticity: - If you want to start a "real" RfC, why not put something together that offers all the images proposed so far to see which one can garner the most support? NickCT (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're assuming bad faith, you can stuff it. There's nothing at all wrong with using a normal mechanism for attempting to discern consensus on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that a better copyright free image is out there. How do people usually go about finding copyright free images for articles? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Support keeping existing photo. While people rant on and on about colouring and lighting in the existing pic, they ignore the inferiority of the poor side-on photo proposed instead. If a better photo is found, great. If not, keep existing one and don't try and remove it at all costs. AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous was rejected initially cause if you look at the history of that image, it was in a shitty condition, I have fixed it ..quite well actually...but the one being proposed is infact a very poor copy of the one i fixed, removing colour or desaturating a image does not make it better, if It could, I would have done it myself..Funny how people complained about the red hair and not realising that the proposed pic also has Red hair...For the last 5 weeks I have been searching for a pic for Corbyn, this was before he became LABOUR Leader, even requested a few images, its not forthcoming so it doesn't matter if you search for it, there is none to be found...personally, I prefer this one as its of a higher quality and focused on his face. I like the 'hat' one too which i have also fixed, but I agree its a bit too old (8 years)...I'm not a fan of crop from youtube videos cause its hard to find the right licence for those and in most cases, the licences cannot be trusted...--Stemoc07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Done There is no button on the talk page, but you can always add the {{edit protected}} template to the section manually. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
' Olowe2011 Talk 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
3
4
3crop
