Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn A-Level results

I believe numerous sources can confirm Jeremy Corbyn obtained two 'E-grades' at A-level, up until recently this information was on the Wikipedia page at the end of the 'Early Life' section, but it has been deleted. Without meaning to sound like a snob I believe it is reasonable to look at the academic record of politicians when deciding whether to vote for them, and while someones academic record does not always reflect their ability it is something to consider. I am requesting for this information to be re-added to the article?

Information requested to be added:

"obtained two E-grades at A-level"

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34184265

Tangotwizzle (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added this to the article, I'm not sure why it was removed. As you say, it comes up in many RS, including The Guardian and The Telegraph as well as the Independent and the BBC sources now in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

How was he allowed to attend a university if he only had two Es? (217.42.27.218 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

On balance it is trivia and not notable so the removal was probably justified. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If four separate sources cover it, then I would say that it is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Did he really attend university on two Es or not? (217.42.27.218 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

Jeremy Corbyn didn't go to university. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article says he did. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

No it doesn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. He even has an Alma mater. (217.42.27.218 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC))

No it doesn't. Read it again. Doesn't say university. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

He studied trade union studies at North London Polytechnic. Polytechnics were generally recognised as being less academically exclusive than universities. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just floored by that observation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Universities didn't always require such high A-level grades. I was made an offer by University College London in 1976, on the basis of an interview, that only required me to gain two Es. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Virgin trains incident

The incident http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700 has been widely reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/jeremy-corbyns-rampacked-train-stunt-backfires-20160823-gqzi82.html, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79734056-6935-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.html?siteedition=uk#axzz4IBXK5bBh, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/private-railway-company-virgin-trains-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-over-video-to-highlight-overcrowding-a7205406.html, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/23/jeremy-corbyn-virgin-trains-disputes-claim-over-lack-of-seats in leading sources so should be included in the article?77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it should be in here - whatever happens with this issue, it is clear that it is a major story, being the lead story of most of the papers. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"A major story"? Are you serious? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid and this is just trivia and hardly a major story, really has no place here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: @Andy Dingley: Note another nonsensical story on image, whether he would bow to the Queen upon induction to the Privy Council, is not even given a passing mention. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Being accused of lying is far more important than whether or not he would bow to the Queen. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Huge item on BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC) .... also, Jezza never got a bouquet

It is indeed a major news story, perhaps almost carrying the same weight as the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Piggate. Perhaps someone will create a suitable article about it, along similar lines. But, it doesn't - yet - really seem sufficiently important to mention it in this biographical article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say this only becomes important if it's a factor in something else, such as it it were deemed to have cost him the leadership. He did something foolish, got caught out, and the media (who, let's face it, generally view him unfavourably) jumped all over the story. I must confess I didn't see the Ten O'Clock News because I'm watching the Proms on BBC Four, but there was some coverage on the Six O'Clock News. At the moment though it's hardly in the same league as Watergate or Plebgate. Perhaps we should hold off for a few days and see whether the story develops further. This is Paul (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

:) This is Paul (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn being accused of lying, barratry on the high seas or buggering the bursar is of no interest whatsoever. Over the last year he's been accused of everything short of being Jack the Ripper and there's still no substance to any of it. Right now Virgin are tweeting that "Coach H" had empty seats, yet if you look at the makeup of these trains, Coach H is the buffet car! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Coach H is indeed the food car, but as you can see from pictures in the articles, it also contains standard class passenger seating. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Can one actually illegally scuttle an entire political party?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC) .... and have you ever had to face one of those East Coast Main Line egg mayo's??

It's a Labour Party tradition. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• The Guardian seems to think it worth reporting. --John (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ye gods, the silly season is upon us. This is Paul (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Some gaffes have more longevity than others, so there's no rush. It could become a big issue because it flies in the face of the honest and spin-free image he tries to cultivate or it could all blow away next time he says something outspoken on policy or his rivals. It's probably more likely to be worth a sentence than a subsection though, assuming his team aren't daft enough to draw attention to it by pursuing Branson over whether CCTV violates privacy laws Dtellett (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. If, down the road, it is established as the undoing of his hold on the leadership, then fine. But if it proves to be a passing story of no significance, then let's follow the obvious course. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The articles about this incident have continued to be leading news for a second day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-37171475 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

okay... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Non story, Richard Branson's own pic (which breachs the Data Protection Act) show the empty seats where reserved when Corbyn first got on the train. After the filming & 45 minutes into the journey, a family was upgraded to first class and a seat was offered to corbyn. I guess Branson might be so concerned with Corbyn's privatisation plans, that he forgot that folks fail to get seats everyday on busy trains.-- BOD -- 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought Old Beardie's withering smackdown actually made this a story. But maybe Jeremy's just researching for his life after politics? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The latest line from Corbyn is that there were seats, just not two together and he wanted to sit next to his wife. "Yes, I did walk through the train. Yes, I did look for two empty seats together so I could sit down with my wife, to talk to her. That wasn't possible so I went to the end of the train." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Traingate - where do we stand? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll reserve judgement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG, have we just reached a new low? This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn seat fall out continues http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/just-a-fifth-of-people-think-jeremy-corbyn-was-telling-the-truth/ 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

and it rumbles on for another day https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/28/john-mcdonnell-richard-branson-stripped-of-knighthood-traingate77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Further coverage here too, with some hard data relevant to his campaign's progress http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-virgin-trains-row-cctv-sitting-on-floor-passengers-overcrowding-a7217471.html I see however that here is no logical place for such info in this article (nor the leadership challenge one for that matter) - is that deliberate? Wikipedia's idea of not being a newspaper perhaps? Or just part of some kind of damage limitation exercise by his supporters? You can see how in Jezzas case, what with all the nasty biased media, that saying nothing at all, except to report the result hopefully, would be the most sensible approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that it is higher profile than the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Piggate incidents, both of which are mentioned in the Ed Miliband and David Cameron pages, with the latter getting a whole paragraph. By comparison to these incidents the Virgin trains incident deserves between a few sentences and paragraph here.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle points out, it how has an article, so it seems to be "notable". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority opinion in the deletion review of said article, 18 to 13 voted to delete the article as unworthy for wikipedia (I did not vote). Hopefully that page will be removed soon. The episode stayed in the newspapers not because it was notable, but because the establishment press is without doubt biased against Corbyn and they will hang on to and twist any story that might be used to discredit him. Personally I think recording the coverage of the incident cheapens both this article and wikipedia. Just because pig gate, or butty incident have a pages should not excuse the recording of yet another incident of biased and shoddy journalism here.-- BOD -- 12:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD's are not decided by majority votes - the very clear template added at the top spelled that out to all contributors? We can look forward to another AfD when deemed necessary. Meanwhile the article, and thus the incident itself, is deemed "notable" in terms of Wikipedia policy and process? You're probably right about about "the establishment press", but that's a personal argument that has no weight here without reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

LSE and Birbeck have given us very good evidence of media bias on reporting of Jeremy - crazed hamster eating leftie - Corbyn-- BOD -- 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But to employ that material here, in the way you suggest, would be WP:SYNTH? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bodney, kindly take your head out your ass and stop giving Wikipedia editors such a bad name. If you bother to consult the article (in its current version, not whatever it is going to look like after it is gutted of all non-essential information by those who desperately don't want it to be here at all because it's embarrassing to poor old Jezza who is after all only interested in our collective health and well being), you will find that this only became a story because a) Jezza produced a film to make a political point b) it was first reported by left leaning The Guardian, who seemed quite happy to cooperate with Corbyn to make the point he wanted to make c) it only then became a huge story because Jezza didn't seem to realise he was taking on someone who has form for hitting right back, and (still) doesn't seem to appreciate that if you don't cooperate with the media, and you can't even be bothered to ensure that when people ask you questions like 'what happened?' they are given a consistent and believable response, then yes, you're going to be portrayed as someone who is incompetent at best, and lying their ass off at worst. 77LmTA6knQ6 makes a really great point - it is completely, totally, obviously wrong for Piggate to be given an entire paragraph in David Cameron's article, over an uncorroborated anecdote no less, and yet traingate gets no mention here at all, despite it being a row about one of Jezza's few notable successes as a leader in his otherwise pretty sorry term (again, consult the article if you're confused about that point). I have never been more convinced that the reason this article makes no mention of what he's been up to on the 2016 campaign trail, is simply damage limitation. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn's 1975 Referendum Vote

In the Early Career and politics section it is stated that 'In the 1975 European Union referendum, Corbyn opposed Britain's membership of the European Union (EU).[21]' This is not in fact the case (the EU was not founded until 1993). Rather: 'In the 1975 EEC Membership Referendum Corbyn voted against the United Kingdom staying in the European Community (the Common Market).' Given the recent political debates this seems an important distinction to be accurate about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WKB16 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for pointing it out. Now  Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Press TV and antisemitism

Expenses and other interests section

Is it really acceptable in wikipedia to include in the wikipedia biography of a living person, a comment about an assertion where the is no evidence that Corbyn agreed with the assertion made by another participant on the TV show, simply because “ it could be interpreted as indifference as well.” Everyday the are programs broadcast where particpants say things and hosts is not obliged say things in response to what has been said.-- BOD -- 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep -- that was a pretty stinky piece of innuendo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it was on a Iranian state TV show whose government has an appalling record on attitudes towards Jews. Remember the notorious International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in 2006. I could have referred to Corbyn's claim that he appeared on Press TV to raise "human rights" issues. I probably will now. But given the appalling record of the Ahmadinejad government in this policy area, I do not believe that can be taken at face value, although the current unavailability online of most of Corbyn's Press TV broadcasts makes this difficult for publications. Citing Oliver Kamm's tweet seemed the best way of hinting at the problem. Call it innuendo if you want, but it looks totally valid to me. Corbyn's much criticised comments about the "tragedy" of Osama bin Laden's death on Press TV probably should be included

"Indifference" is the best that can be said of Corbyn in connection with antisemitism. The issue has been raised by numerous reliable sources in coverage since last summer. Yet the word antisemitism appears nowhere in this article, while Corbyn has periodically been accused of being indifferent to the prejudice (or hatred of Jews) for more than a year. Even Corbyn conceded this was an issue when he set up the Chakrabarti Inquiry after his friend Ken Livingstone was suspended following Livingstone's assertions about the comments by Naz Shah. There is a link to the Chakrabarti Inquiry in the panel for Corbyn related articles, but nothing directly about the issue. Even a brief outline of incidents since September 2015 is absent here.There is a section about the issue in Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015 on his connections with people accused of antisemitism, but things have moved on since then.

Corbyn cannot be blamed for the actions of people who appear to be his supporters, but there is nothing here either on the abuse of Jewish MPs such as Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth or the expulsion of activists for antisemitic tweets. His responses have consistently been found wanting in sources we are supposed to use. Philip Cross (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)