Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

"Vital Context missing from discussion of Sailsbury Attack

The section on the Sailsbury Attack is missing vital context:

Corbyn made a speech about the attack on the 15th March, the same day he wrote the article: https://www.ukpol.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-2018-response-to-the-salisbury-attack-statement/

What you'll notice is that this is the first time that Corbyn mentions requesting evidence from Russia and performing tests on the sample. He mentions it in the context of duties the UK Government would have if they were to try and find Russia guilty according to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The article does not mention that Corbyn was basing his stance on Russia on the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor does the PoliticsHome source cited.

I would argue understanding that this position wasn't a matter of "Let's let Russia decide the case" but was actually Corbyn trying to get the response to adhere to procedures established by a Rules Based International Order, is a vital piece of context to understand this event.

Omitting this context is extremely misleading. DoricSpengler (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Another point I would make is that the way this Wikipedia Article cites the Guardian article Corbyn wrote on the 15th of March is extremely selective in it's reading, and potentially verges on misinformation.

The wikipedia article quotes him saying "Is a matter for police and security professionals to determine". I'm going to post the original context of that statement and highlight in bold the part the article quotes him on, to hopefully demonstrate why I believe this is misleading:

"Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible."

The way the article presents these comments is Corbyn saying he doesn't believe a definitive answer has been established. This is not the case, Corbyn is saying he agrees with Theresa May that there are two possibilities, that either the Russian State was responsible, or someone acquired the chemicals from the Russian State, and that it is up to security services to determine which of these is true.

Taking a brief line about it being a matter for police and security proffesionals to determine to make it seem as though he's contradicting the government's account, when the original context is him expressing agreement with the government's account, is such a misrepresentation of what was actually said that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it may as well be considered a blatant lie.

Moreover, Corbyn then goes on throughout the article to specify that he wishes to seek Magnitsky-style Sanctions against Russian officials close to Putin. This context is also not mentioned in the article.

The wikipedia page as it currently exists, completely misrepresents the article it cites in order to paint a cleaner picture of Corbyn's response to the Sailsbury attack than actually exists. DoricSpengler (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Deputy leader should be Deputy Leader, please change the grammar 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done —Sirdog (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mjocc, this is a broadly impartial and good quality article on a controversial subject. Their are some aspects which I think could do with being improved before a promotion.

Irish politics

• This section could do with more context particularly in relation to the quite widespread sympathy towards the Irish Republican movement on the political left in Great Britain during this period.

Corbynmania

• Some of the text here is a bit too slanted to be impartially written in Wikipedia's voice. I would especially recommend changing "Corbyn's authentic, informal style and radical policies appealed to many of the young new members who had joined after the membership fee had been reduced to £3." to something like "many young new members who had joined after the membership fee had been reduced to £3 were attracted by what they saw as Corbyn's authentic, informal style and radical policies" and "Corbyn's personal qualities were earnest and modest and these inspired warm emotions such as devotion and loyalty." to e.g "Many of Corbyn's supporters felt he possessed positive personal qualities such as earnestness and modesty leading them to develop a sense of emotional attachment to him as individual."
• I would recommend updated this section with events in 2019. It may also be helpful to include more focus on its role in the 2017 election.
• special is misspelt especial

Shadow Cabinet resignations and vote of no confidence

• The timeline is a bit confused in the first paragraph - please specify what day Corbyn conducted the reshuffle.

2016 leadership challenge and election

• This section should be a ==== rather than === level subheading. Go on to source editing to clarify what I mean.
• "A survey of the public found that 66% of those surveyed believed that the Labour party needed a new leader before the 2020 elections and only 23 per cent believed that Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister while Theresa May had an approval rating of 55 per cent." -what date or at least month did this take place
• "when other passengers were upgraded by train staff." - please make this section clearer
• "Meanwhile, a poll for The Independent by BMG Research" - clarify when this took place as well

Article 50

• "to force Labour MPs in favour"- the phrase "to vote" is missing here

2017 general election

I think this would be a more logical structure for the section...

Corbyn said he welcomed Prime Minister Theresa May's proposal to seek an early general election in 2017.[214] He said his party should support the government's move in the parliamentary vote.[215] The Labour campaign focused on social issues like health care, education and ending austerity.[216] The election campaign was run under the slogan "For the Many, Not the Few"[223] and featured rallies with a large audience and connected with a grassroots following for the party, including appearing on stage in front of a crowd of 20,000 at the Wirral Live Festival in Prenton Park.[224][225] He chose to take part in television debates and dressed more professionally than usual, wearing a business suit and tie.[226]

Earlier in the year, Corbyn had become the first opposition party leader since 1982 to lose a by-election to an incumbent government,[217] and at the time May called the election Labour trailed the Conservative Party by up to 25 points in some opinion polls.[218] A large Conservative majority was widely predicted. Following the short campaign, Labour again finished as the second largest party in parliament but surprised many pundits by increasing their share of the popular vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament. Although Labour started the campaign as far as 20 points behind, it defied expectations by gaining 40% of the vote, its greatest share since 2001. It was the first time Labour had made a net gain of seats since 1997, and the party's 9.6% increase in vote share was its largest in a single general election since 1945.[218][219] This has partly been attributed to the popularity of its 2017 Manifesto that promised to scrap tuition fees, address public sector pay, make housing more affordable, end austerity, nationalise the railways and provide school students with free lunches.[220][221][222] Corbyn said the result was a public call for the end of "austerity politics" and suggested May should step down as Prime Minister.[218] Corbyn said that he had received the largest vote for a winning candidate in the history of his borough.[227]

Leaked Labour Party report on antisemitism

• "The report included what is said were examples of how senior Labour Party officials" change "is said" to "it alleges"
• The needs update notice related to the Forde enquiry needs to be acted on. The reference needs to be reworded or removed.

2019 general election and resignation

• "The 2019 general election was the worst defeat for Labour since the 1930s.[285] At 32.2%, Labour's share of the vote was down around eight points on the 2017 general election and is lower than that achieved by Neil Kinnock in 1992, although it was higher than in 2010 and 2015." - It would be helpful to specify that it was the worst result in seats in order to clarify the other vote share comparisons.
• "Labour MPs were elected in 202 seats, their lowest representation since 1935 and fourth successive election defeat, although the party's share of the vote was higher than in 2015 and 2010.[292]" This is partially repeating the same information, move all statistics about labour's overall result into one paragraph for clarity.

Opinion polling

• This second section on opinion polling could do with being a bit more fleshed out.

Policies and views

• "but would now bring them under public control "line by line" as franchises expire" this should be associated with a specific point in time or policy announcement
• "he called upon the Tory government to institute sanctions" avoid using slang term "Tory"

Allegations of antisemitism

• There is a needs update notice in this section which needs to be addressed.

Media coverage

• "Corbyn had in fact taken legal action against Conservative MP Ben Bradley during his leadership (see Other events)." It would be better to include a citation here.

I will place this review on hold for you to work on the changes suggested. Please contact me when you would like to move forward. Thanks--Llewee (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Saw this on the GAN list and had a look. The article is comprehensive, but there is room for improvement on some of the writing structure. This is a very long article at 111kB of prose, which might be appropriate given the specificity, but makes it more important to consider how it will be read. Throughout this article there are numerous one or two sentence paragraphs based off a single source, which don't integrate well into the surrounding text. Part of this may be the result of such items often being cited to primary sources like a parliamentary description page, which do not provide context or analysis. Another cause is reporting on minor moments or incidents, that may not have had long-term impact.

Related is the way the article jumps between chronological and topic-based information. Broadly, it seems like the first few sections (up to "Post-leadership") are meant to be chronological, but often see a topical jump to another time (eg. "Irish politics" within "Labour in opposition (1982–1997)" jumps at the end to "In 2017, Corbyn said that..."). Perhaps it would be better to condense the timeline sections to the more important moments, leaving summaries of topical views and analysis regarding these to later sections. Regarding political positions, this is a section full of disconnected and often very small topics (contributing greatly to a lengthy table of contents). This is most clear in the lengthy "Foreign Affairs" subsection, which has small and in some places seemingly arbitrary splits (eg. why is "Nuclear weapons" separate from "War and Peace", why does "Tunisian wreath-laying controversy" have a section outside of "Israel and Palestine"?). This section is one with a subarticle (Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn), so it would be well served by having a more holistic summary than a series of disconnected subsections.

On an unrelated point, it may be worth considering an international audience of the article. Jargon like "had the whip removed" will not be easily understood by those unfamiliar with British politics. Best, CMD (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee and Mjocc: What is the status of this review? It has now been open for almost two months. CMD (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, Mjocc hasn't responded to the review or edited the article since the initial review. I was trying to give them time to do so though I know it has probably now been too long.--Llewee (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've got a lot to sort out in real life over the next couple of days. I'll have another look at the article later in the week. If I think I'm able to make the changes necessary I'll work through them, if not I'll close it. Llewee (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee Apologies, I'm only just seeing all of this. I'm afraid that I'm also very busy over the next few weeks and don't really have the time to fix all these issues, so I'm happy for it to be closed if necessary. Mjocc (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc:, if I was to leave this open for another month do you think you would be able to work on it by then?--Llewee (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I should be able to do some work on this article in that timeframe. I'm not entirely sure I'll get through everything suggested by you and CMD, but I'll do as much as I can. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Llewee:, I have some more time now, and have started to do some work on this article, so would appreciate if this could be left open for another couple of weeks. Thanks, Mjocc (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc: we can leave it open until after the Christmas period if you want to. Please, strikethrough any changes you've made as shown or add any comments/questions after them. For a completed review with a similar structure see, Talk:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes/GA1. I'll sign off my suggestions and then Ping Chipmunkdavis for their side of the review.--Llewee (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that should be enough time. Mjocc (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mjocc:, how are you getting on with this? Its been another mouth now and you haven't edited the article at all since you last replied here. If their's reasons in your personal life why your not able to work on this or you don't feel as if you know how to deal with the problems then please just say.--Llewee (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Llewee; Thank you for being so understanding. I have had a few personal issues recently, but also I am somewhat new to Wikipedia editing and feel I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this article. I am happy for the GA nomination to be closed if no-one else is willing to work on it. Thanks again, Mjocc (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok @Mjocc: thank you for being honest, I'm going to close this review, given the amount of work that needs to done I would feel as if I was marking my own homework if I tried to sort it out and then pass it myself. Feel free to work on the issues raised in this review when you're ready and renominate.--Llewee (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Labour files leak

So, why is there nothing on here about the Labour files leak? The smears on Corbyn were shown to be a made-up, co-ordinated attack on him. To be added in due course Apeholder (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Apeholder, can you cite references referring to them? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Burrobert (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

@Burrobert, plenty there for editors to get their teeth into, thanks for all those. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Labour Files and Forde Report don't have wiki articles yet tbh. ---- G-13114 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

They are probably not mentioned because they have had little mainstream media attention. I won't question why the media found the allegations noteworthy enough to report in detail but have ignored the leaked documents. You are welcome of course to add information.

I'm always reticent to include investigative journalism that has not been picked up by other sources, which is why I did not add anything.

There should be better coverage of the documents in academic writing some time in the future. TFD (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Since when does the justification for something to be added to WP rely on whether or not the MSM has covered it. Is WP just an echo chamber for what the mainstream are covering? Apeholder (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I agree that makes Wikipedia an echo chamber, but that's the intention. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

To avoid doubt, is not the Forde Report considered reliable, published material? Also, was not the leaked Labour Report a media story of some public interest? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

private school

The childhood section says JC went to an « independent «  school. This is what conservatives call them. The normal expression, and certainly what Corbyn would say, is « private school » 2A01:CB06:8009:4A76:F0B1:A914:D769:E9FC (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is that independent schools are governed by trustees, whlle private schools are governed by owners.[1] TFD (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Lede

It is misleading to claim Corbyn supported remaining in the EU, since he was widely accused of deliberately sabotaging the Remain campaign: Corbyn sabotaged Labour’s remain campaign. He must resign | Phil Wilson | The Guardian Aardi18 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Phil Wilson, a Labour politician who wrote in the run up to the 2017 general election: "I am no supporter of Theresa May and I am no supporter of Jeremy Corbyn". Hardly a neutral voice you put forward. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There was widespread criticism, so much so that Corbyn had to publicly deny he had voted to leave the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardi18 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)