Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3

658:

those sources have unedited video or audio transcripts to support a claimed quote) what was said, who suggested it and then simply keep that in the text. I do not believe that opinions expressed by other political figures about another political figure are truly representations of facts on an issue rather bring into opinions and ideas suggested by other parties. If these views need to be entered into an article surely they should have their own place rather than fogging every other stage in the article where truly those views are irrelevant to the reader on the given subject area. Unless the topic title is related to other politicians or special interest persons / groups opinions on the person in question then surely it makes sense that those are not included and the reason why they should not be included is exemplified by this foregoing issue with the contradictory statements. When you start bringing in quotes by bias parties on the person subject to the article you are opening it up to bias therefore it is only inherent that the article then be subject to bias. I wouldn't go as far to say that this appears to be an issue of controversy but more so a question of the eduction to which those writing such statements have about Encyclopaedia content. I would suggest and move to a review of this article to address the aforementioned problems that occur all so much in these articles.

895:

a topic I would like to remain stagnant on to be honest (I am really unable to engage in political articles to an extent where I am directly contributing to content.) This was simply an issue whereby I stumbled upon the article and as a Knowledge (XXG) editor felt it didn't really clarify the issue in a way that was clear and free from bias. I do have an idea that people who generally read Knowledge (XXG) would like impartial and straight forward reading without having to feel like they are reading a newspaper or political debate. Many people I have spoken to seem to take this strong view that "most of Knowledge (XXG) is crap" - for want of a better word. I am sure you have stumbled on this yourself and its for us as keen editors to try our best to make it a better place for everyone so such sentiments are not drawn when they are avoidable. Thanks again I will be happy to speak to you soon

145:. Surely the content of an encyclopaedia should absolutely stray away from stylising points of view expressed by a columnist as a fact. It would be different if Labour themselves had announced this as the reason but to date I have found absolutely no validation of this opinion other than speculative. Is Knowledge (XXG) a place for speculative opinions to be plopped on the reading table (or phone, tablet ect) as a fact? I wouldn't have thought so. This is why I strongly believe this content should be removed and anything like it. If it is to be kept I would suggest that it be written as is and that is an opinion of whomever expressed it as to why the Labour party reduced rates. 261:. That reads like a speculative conclusion not based at all by the source page referenced to the BBC article. Specifically "labour experimented attracting mass support" is certainly an example of what I am saying here. The statement in itself is bold and relates to an opinion held about why they reduced the price to £3 rather than a factual assertion drawn upon by the article referenced. The issue here is that an encyclopaedia really should not be a place to field speculative personal views that are not reflected especially in the sources referenced. Do you not genuinely believe that the article is better as edited now than it was before with that claim removed? 958:), the claims are laid out in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, both of whom may or may not have an axe to grind, one corroborated by photographic evidence and it's not common to see them join in accusation of a British politician in rising favour. There has been only a qualified and selective denial by Corbyn's office. I have tried to do justice to the subject in adding this here, but it is a very serious and controversial charge for a potential party leader and other editors may wish to comment on this. 31: 898: 846: 756: 710: 661: 264: 198: 152: 829:

Corbyn and this is a matter of fact and he simply relayed this as a suggestion then perhaps this fact can be made clearer. However, I do find that it is imperative that statements which defeat each other should be removed because as a new reader to this article I did get the distinct impression that these two statements where presented as facts despite contradicting each other:

685:

asserting bias across the top of what is currently a very high profile article. Your point about the wording of the section regarding his policy on women-only carriages can be addressed here, without a tag asserting bias across the entire article. I suggest it should be removed again - please don't re-add it without providing better arguments about the article as a whole.

843:

clear, decisive and non bias overview of the person subject to this article. I would also strongly side with this article being over detailed and read more like a complete life and political biography rather than a Knowledge (XXG) article evolving around the basic facts people need to know when they read Knowledge (XXG) and search for Jeremy Corbyn.

1226:

and does not reflect the source. It's also a very partial reading of the source, which, immediately after commenting on his large popular mandate, says: "No leader in the party's 115-year history has ever been elected with so little support from MPs." The introduction makes no mention of that, which raises questions of

1230:. We need to preserve balance and neutrality. One option is that the final sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction should be entirely removed - a full discussion of his election, including both the large popular mandate and the lack of MP support, should be covered in the main text. Thoughts? 1276:

That's a little wordy, I think. Why not just reword the previous sentence -"On 12 September 2015, he was elected Leader of the Labour Party, winning over 250,000 votes, almost 60% of the total, in the first round of the ballot." We can then remove the "biggest ever" stuff - which seems to me to use

1225:

of votes - they may have been elected unanimously, or by an overwhelming majority, by a vote of their MPs, but in many cases those elections were held in secret (and obviously, had much smaller absolute numbers of votes cast). So, the wording of the sentence in the introduction (third para) is wrong

828:

Hello, thanks for your more than amicable response. I would simply suggest that quotes from bias sources are removed and placed in a section designated "Opinions by others" on the person subject to this article or something similar stylised to avoid contradictions. If this was an idea expressed to Mr

706:

I do not agree with the removal of maintenance tags until the issue is resolved however, if you feel that for some reason this may add to the integrity of the article then you are free to do so. But I do wish you to note that it is fair before making arbitrator type edits to resolve the issue at hand

118:- Relevance to an encyclopaedia. From a common sense approach it doesn't seem necessary to include information about Mr Corbyn's dressing habits in an article that is aimed to inform a reader what they need to know about this person and what is relevant and factual. It is a given that this might be a 1455:

The problem with "largest mandate" is that it's a POV claim that's very open to dispute: Blair obtained the first preferences of 150k more voters overall (as Union members could vote), a clear majority of local constituency party members' first preferences (Corbyn fell just short of 50%) and a clear

894:

Thank you for being an open and friendly editor, I think this really goes into account for your character. The edits you have made make it a lot clearer and clarify the issue so that it appears less contradictory. I will review the rest of this article for similar issues when I have time but its not

546:

I really don't know what to say if you really want to have it your way have it your way. The point is he was nowhere in the polls & he came from behind & overtook everyone in a blink. It was hardly as if he crept up the lead table one by one. However you wish to phrase it... - in fact, to my

297:

I don't think the use of the word 'quick' in the lead is factually correct. He did emerge as the lead but it wasn't sudden or immediate - he was not initially ahead in the polls in June or July, and it was only in August he stayed ahead. So you reverted my removal of the word quick - want to discuss

876:

I agree that having both comments is unnecessary now that the leadership election is over and I have removed the comment about the other candidates opinion but looking at the article, Corbyn published the suggestions in a policy document. This implies that he was doing more than simply relaying the

732:

You have added the banner tag incorrectly. If you wish to question one statement in the article, tag that section, not the whole article, about which you agree there is no controversy. You should revert your addition of the tag - I will not do so again, but if other editors have a similar view to

684:

You seem to be raising an issue requiring a minor clarification, rather than a major controversy, though some of your language is quite difficult to follow. You say yourself that "I wouldn't go as far to say that this appears to be an issue of controversy". In that case, it does not require a tag

657:

The simple fact is if this idea was suggested to him by another and he simply related that idea then why would there be quotes to suggest that the idea was in fact conceived by him in the first instance and then "condemned" by others. We need to establish by reliable non-media based sources (unless

461:

not featuring) in the polls, but as soon as his name was placed on the roster (for want of any better word) his support "seemingly" rocketed, largely by the harnessing of social media (by his supporters). How else to put it succinctly other than : "quickly emerged after his candidature was formally

222:

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - the £3 decision was taken in the wake of a scandal in Falkirk in 2013 (where there was evidence that Unite secretly paid for new party memberships for local people without their consent). I haven't yet come across anyone who thinks that it was changed to

194:

Hello, I believe that another editor has recently cleaned up an edit I made to the section. Please tell me what you think. If you read the BBC article you will find that whoever wrote that section here on Knowledge (XXG) (prior to our edits) clearly speculated on what the BBC was trying to refer to

1182:

reportedly also attended at least one of the events since 2005. I can see the logic behind including Eisen on a list of alleged anti-Semites Corbyn reportedly associated with, but not the logic in doing further original research to try to prove when and where Corbyn attended and what he might have

174:

I have changed the article to fit with your first suggestion. As to your second, I don't think anyone was suggesting that - the decision to have £3 entry was taken well before the general election and therefore well before Corbyn had even entered the race. I will try and think of an alternative to

1220:

says. It says: "No leader has ever won office with a larger mandate", "the largest mandate ever won by a party leader". That is true - he got a greater number of votes than any previous leader, because it was the first direct membership election in a major party. We don't know whether previous

1072:. There is a simple factual problem with Corbyn's reported statement about Eisen not being known as a Holocaust denier before 2013, which is noteworthy, encyclopedia and highly relevant to the content. Please do not remove, however problematic it may be for Corbyn's team without discussion here. 1042:

With respect, I profoundly differ. Three sources have indicated concern about this matter, and one provides photographic evidence to evidence support his attendance. Eisen's blog is a fourth testimony (though of dubious value for citation here). Corbyn and his office has not categorically refuted

1001:

article which might imply Corbyn has questions to answer reads as follows: "When asked to confirm whether Corbyn knows Eisen personally, or whether Eisen's accounts of Corbyn attending 'every single' one of his events and 'opening his cheque book' to his organisation are correct, the spokesperson

806:

Can you suggest a change to the content? To me it reads as if they are criticising Corbyn for considering having this idea as his policy, but if you think it is unclear then feel free to suggest an alternative. You also say that some of the article reads like a tabloid - which other parts do you

128:

Labour experimented attracting mass support by publicly offering reduced-price party membership of £3, thereby enabling "registered supporters" to vote in its 2015 leadership election. There was some speculation that this would lead to Jeremy being elected on £3 donors alone and not have majority

105:

After further review of this article (more so a primary review as I will go into further detail with reading once I have the time to do so) I have identified two statements which I do not find to be encyclopaedia orientated content and rather the expression of opinions that are stylised as facts.

842:

In conclusion it seems right that the views and opinions expressed by bias sources are removed from sections that are trying to convey matters of fact. This shouldn't be about reiterating political debates or depicting two sided discussions between the labour and conservative party rather give a

636:

In August 2015, Corbyn raised the prospect of introducing women-only carriages on public transport (a policy currently enforced in Japan), as well as a 24-hour hotline for women to report cases of harassment. He said that although his aim was to "make public transport safer for everyone from the

1259:

Yes I agree, I was trying to reword it but not sure I succeeded. Note that e.g. Blair got more votes than him (400,00 from members alone) and John Major got a higher percentage of the vote in 1994 (although that was from MPs rather than a mass exercise). Could you guys suggest a better wording?

1011:

It could be that the spokesman does not know, or is aware that it cannot be denied, bu s/the is not saying so. We don't know. Unlike Corbyn's comments about Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah, we don't have anything from Corbyn about Paul Eisen to quote. Anything we might add is liable to be our

652:

His statement was condemned by Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, with Cooper stating that Corbyn's plan was "turning the clock back instead of tackling the problem", while Conservative Women's Minister Nicky Morgan said she was "uncomfortable with the idea", which sounded like

643:

1174:

seems like a moot point really, in the absence of anything to indicate that Corbyn did due diligence on the organisers before turning up to a Palestinian memorial service held near his constituency (never mind being a close confidant as Eisen claims). Unlikely

591:- we could go on for ever about this, but it really was a major, massive, astonishing surprise how quickly he soared to the top the leadership polls. Would you rather infer that he slogged it out campaigned really hard, canvassed his fellow MPs 122:

however, it is certainly not a given that this fact is necessary or constructive for building a page that is supposed to be for the latter mentioned reason. I would move to remove this detail as it seems to contribute to clutter and is far from

974: 527:

So your sources seem to say only that he joined the contest at the start of June, and a poll at the end of July shows him as ahead, that is no different to the information I've already provided above, two months is far from quick.

1140:(no paywall) is an article identifying Paul Eisen as an antisemite from June 2005 which cites an article by Eisen dating from the previous November. In that source, Eisen comments positively about Holocaust denier 239:" To clarify - I don't think that the "It was reported in the British media" statement is necessary - it is not a disputed fact that the rules were changed and the entry widened in order to have "mass democracy" 1260:

Possibly something along the lines of: "the highest percentage of votes ever in a mass party leadership election in British political history" to distinguish it from elections held with just MPs voting

1407:

Only that there hasn't ever been "a mass party leadership election" arranged in the same way as this one before. But if you're happy with that level of generalisation, I guess there is no problem.

1183:

been able to find out about the organisers. Frankly I think the article would be improved more by including further details of things Corbyn has actually said and done over the past three decades.

1421:

How about using the wording from the source - "the largest mandate ever won by a party leader". The only problem is the need for quotation marks, which some could construe as "scare quotes".

223:

make it easier for leaders on the left of Labour to win and I don't think this is how it read either. The BBC was certainly not alone in reporting this - it was fairly big news back in 2013

951:

These apparently originate from Paul Eisen's blog. He is reportedly an open Holocaust denier, and has been rejected by PSC for anti-semitism. His incriminating blog post is

629:

Hello fellows. It appears that some of this article lacks common sense completely and reads like a tabloid rather than an Encyclopaedia. For example under the section for "

1337:

I inserted the word "mass" to distinguish it from an election by MPs but I agree it is a bit wordy and this is not ideal - could you/anyone else suggest an alternative?

1623: 982:

also raise precisely the same concern (without the photographic evidence) and the Guardian cites the office response. I inclined to revert, but happy to discuss here.

877:

suggestion. However he then seemed to suggest it was a proposal rather than a definite policy. Perhaps the best solution would be to quote from the article itself?

477:

The "as soon as his name was placed on the roster (for want of any better word) his support "seemingly" rocketed" doesn't reflect the actual polling information in

952: 462:

endorsed"? Either way, he did not slog it out for most of the Labour campaign: he joined late (last, in fact) and led pretty much thereafter. Please advise. M

478: 364: 342: 977: 1351:

I saw the new wording and thought it was OK - it also adds a mention of the low number of MPs supporting him, which gives the necessary balance.

453:

I introduced the term "quickly" into the article about Jeremy Corbyn and this is because for a long time he was not even off the starting blocks,

561:

I must be missing something, but I really struggle to understand why you choose to describe an approximately two month period as "in a blink". --

506: 457:

he didn't initially have sufficient parliamentary nominations to participate; so, prior to his formal/official candidature he was well behind (

1643:

I'm not sure we need this sort of speculation in the main BLP. Perhaps in some subsidiary article? Or in the article on the army, perhaps.

834:

Mr. Corbyn was told by someone (who?) that it would be a good idea to create spaces in trains for women which he then expressed or relayed

1108: 1079: 1217: 1624:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html

1659: 980: 325: 1460:'s earlier suggested wording is better, or perhaps *many commentators described Corbyn's victory as "the largest mandate...."* 481:, saying it was quick isn't unequivocally supported by the evidence, and to use adjectives like that unsupported by sources is 1544:, or contributions from anonymous editors. This restriction expires in 30 days, as reflected by the page's edit notice. -- 89: 1393:

I'm struggling to think of an improvement, because I don't understand the problem... Can you put me out of my misery?

1384: 1342: 1314: 1265: 928: 882: 812: 371: 244: 228: 180: 81: 76: 64: 59: 1365:

My problem is that "mass" means something new in this election. But I can't think of any obvious way to improve it.

1323:

You've moved the sentence without changing it. It's equally misleading, even if it's no longer in the introduction?

1648: 38: 1212:

Introduction - "the highest percentage of votes ever in a party leadership election in British political history"

1590: 1445: 1412: 1370: 1328: 1296: 1250: 973:

Whilst writing this, I see another editor has already taken exception on the basis the DM is not a good source

569: 536: 493: 429: 390: 353: 332: 314: 780:

For the record, and to avoid confusion, you added your comment starting "I do not agree" at 08:39, not 08:57.

595:...? No, this is not the case. Anyway, let's see how you would rather have it recorded on Wiki. Thank you. M 507:

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/06/04/shropshire-educated-jeremy-corbyn-joins-labour-leadership-race/

1380: 1338: 1310: 1261: 1112: 1083: 924: 891: 878: 825: 808: 367: 240: 224: 176: 1104: 1075: 737:, not after, adding unexplained tags; and you should sign talk page posts using four of these symbols: ~ 1565: 1153: 1025: 649:

he would consult women on whether separate carriages would be welcome, after the idea was suggested to him

639:

he would consult women on whether separate carriages would be welcome, after the idea was suggested to him

1644: 1069: 1309:, that then removes the question of balance with not including that he had so little support from MPs 1605: 1221:

leaders of major parties won their own elections, under their own systems at the time, with a higher

259:

Labour experimented attracting mass support by publicly offering reduced-price party membership of £3

1541: 1525: 920: 905: 853: 803: 763: 717: 668: 547:

mind, it's more commendable that he raced to poll position and held that position. Over to you... M

271: 205: 175:

try and make this clear - if you are reading it as suggesting this then other people may be as well

159: 1583: 1441: 1408: 1366: 1324: 1292: 1246: 837:

Political figures then denouncing him for these ideas as if they had been his in the first instance

562: 529: 486: 422: 386: 346: 328: 307: 363:

Indeed, this poll (by YouGov) is listed as the third one to take place once entries had closed on

1628:

Is it notable that the UK armed forces will not respect the choice of the voters in this matter?

1479: 1465: 1426: 1398: 1356: 1282: 1235: 1194: 1188: 786: 742: 690: 600: 552: 518: 467: 47: 17: 1601: 1660:

http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-defence-expert-what-a-british-coup-would-actually-look-like

1561: 1437: 1149: 1148:, who shares many of their opinions, was on the board of Deir Yassin Remembered at this time. 1048: 1021: 987: 963: 1537: 1529: 1227: 1600:

Any reversion restriction does not apply to removal of copyright or obvious NFC violations (

733:

mine, I will support them in doing so. Also, you should raise issues on article talk pages

1533: 1666: 1633: 1101:

Ditto reference to example of Raed Salah's rhetoric to evidence the nature of his views.

1043:

these serious claims, despite ample opportunity. Do you really think Corbyn doesn't know?

1291:

I think the "£3-a-vote" innovation has made any kind of comparison a bit of a lame duck.

1141: 1012:

interpretation and thus original research/synthesis. It does not matter, therefore, that

482: 1191:) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) {-- WP:BLP: struck out description of Gerald Kaufman. 1179: 1245:

Agree. It's very hard to compare like with like if the rules change each time around.

1068:

Note removal of Guardian's 2007 description of Eisen as Holocaust denier. Please read

1536:

on any image-or-file-related changes, with exception for reverting clear and obvious

1475: 1461: 1457: 1422: 1394: 1352: 1306: 1278: 1231: 1184: 1145: 1137: 782: 738: 686: 630: 596: 548: 514: 463: 301: 1456:

majority of MPs (Corbyn was obviously backed by only a tiny minority of the party).

1670: 1652: 1637: 1608: 1595: 1569: 1552: 1483: 1469: 1449: 1430: 1416: 1402: 1388: 1374: 1360: 1346: 1332: 1318: 1300: 1286: 1269: 1254: 1239: 1198: 1157: 1144:. (This piece by Eisen is still online, but I'm not linking to it). Note also that 1116: 1087: 1052: 1044: 1029: 983: 967: 959: 932: 913: 886: 861: 816: 790: 771: 752:

Please see your talk page for my response on your previously mentioned suggestions.

746: 725: 694: 676: 604: 574: 556: 541: 522: 498: 471: 434: 394: 375: 358: 336: 319: 279: 248: 232: 213: 184: 167: 954:, (non RS perhaps, but not easily accessed, and the author has disabled archiving 510: 141:

on WHY the labour party publicly offered a reduced party membership rather than a

923:

are you happy for me to now remove the "NPOV section" notice from this section?

137:- Expression of an opinion stylised as a fact. This point appears to be a clear 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

707:

first without simply basing your choice on your own decision making. Thank you.

1662: 1629: 1577: 1545: 382: 110:

Corbyn at this time was known for wearing open-necked shirts to the Commons.

1379:

Ah yes I see your point, unfortunately I am stuck for a better solution

955: 751: 637:

train platform, to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself",

1474:"...many commentators..." One commentator used those words. 195:

rather than style it around what the article itself was saying.

1574:

in addition do they apply to removals of copyright violations

25: 293:

Corbyn quickly emerged as the lead candidate in opinion polls

579:

The way you campaign nothing will ever be over in a blink -

703: 633:" there seems to be a completely contradictory statement. 479:

Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling

365:

Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling

343:

Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015#Opinion_polling

288:

lead in opinion polls described in lead as quickly emerged

1560:

So the sanctions only apply to image-related reverts?

1136:

article and dismiss David Aaronovitch if you want but

505:

I'm so sorry but please take stock of the following:

511:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9461 291: 8: 444:Corbyn quickly emerged as the lead candidate 129:support within members of the Labour Party. 1102: 1073: 1277:language that is slanted in his favour. 588:he surprised everyone (including himself) 341:Certainly isn't the picture presented by 778:...and I have already responded there. 1436:Anyone might think he's some kind of " 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1520:Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP 412:Corbyn emerged as the lead candidate 381:You see, you can't even trust these 24: 101:Article - Further review comments 1132:Corbyn is not mentioned in this 896: 844: 754: 708: 659: 262: 196: 150: 29: 513:. Please argue against that! M 1671:22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC) 1653:15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC) 1638:15:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC) 1609:10:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1596:09:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1570:09:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1553:04:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1528:, all editors to this article 1484:07:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1470:23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1450:18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1431:18:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1417:18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1403:17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1389:16:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1375:15:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1361:15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1347:15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1333:15:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1319:14:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1301:12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1287:12:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1270:11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1255:11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1240:10:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1199:16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 997:The passage from the week old 933:22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 914:19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 887:09:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 862:09:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 817:09:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 791:09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 772:08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 747:08:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 726:08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 695:08:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 677:08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 605:22:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 575:22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 557:22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 542:22:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 523:22:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 499:22:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 472:22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 435:21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 395:21:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 376:21:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 359:21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 337:21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 320:21:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 280:21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 249:21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 233:21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 214:20:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 185:19:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 168:19:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 1: 1020:have mentioned this subject. 625:NPOV Dispute - General Issue 1158:15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1117:18:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1088:17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1053:20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1030:20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 968:20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 407:Well lets see what's what: 1686: 947:Paul Eisen support claims 446:- votes for this version 414:- votes for this version 1658:Planning for the coup: 1534:one revert per 24 hours 1532:to making no more than 976:, though the Guardian 582:he came out of nowhere 295: 1002:declined to comment." 807:have a problem with? 257:The wording used was 42:of past discussions. 1014:The Jewish Chronicle 631:Energy and transport 1619:A Very British Coup 106:Please see below: 1381:Absolutelypuremilk 1339:Absolutelypuremilk 1311:Absolutelypuremilk 1262:Absolutelypuremilk 925:Absolutelypuremilk 892:Absolutelypuremilk 879:Absolutelypuremilk 826:Absolutelypuremilk 809:Absolutelypuremilk 368:Absolutelypuremilk 241:Absolutelypuremilk 225:Absolutelypuremilk 177:Absolutelypuremilk 18:Talk:Jeremy Corbyn 1606:Black Kite (talk) 1551: 1452: 1119: 1107:comment added by 1090: 1078:comment added by 781: 501: 397: 383:rotten Socialists 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1677: 1645:Nomoskedasticity 1593: 1587: 1581: 1550: 1548: 1435: 1216:That's not what 1197: 912: 910: 900: 899: 860: 858: 848: 847: 779: 770: 768: 758: 757: 724: 722: 712: 711: 675: 673: 663: 662: 572: 566: 539: 533: 496: 490: 476: 432: 426: 380: 356: 350: 317: 311: 305: 278: 276: 266: 265: 212: 210: 200: 199: 166: 164: 154: 153: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1621: 1591: 1585: 1575: 1546: 1542:redlinked files 1530:are now limited 1522: 1214: 1192: 949: 906: 904: 897: 854: 852: 845: 764: 762: 755: 718: 716: 709: 669: 667: 660: 627: 570: 564: 537: 531: 494: 488: 430: 424: 354: 348: 315: 309: 299: 290: 272: 270: 263: 206: 204: 197: 160: 158: 151: 103: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1683: 1681: 1656: 1655: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1572: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1453: 1442:Martinevans123 1409:Martinevans123 1367:Martinevans123 1325:Martinevans123 1293:Martinevans123 1247:Martinevans123 1213: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1180:Gerald Kaufman 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1062: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 992: 991: 948: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 869: 868: 867: 866: 839: 838: 835: 831: 830: 820: 819: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 776: 698: 697: 655: 654: 650: 644:"segregation". 626: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 448: 447: 440: 439: 438: 437: 416: 415: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 387:Martinevans123 329:Martinevans123 289: 286: 285: 284: 254: 253: 252: 251: 237: 236: 235: 219: 218: 147: 146: 131: 130: 125: 124: 112: 111: 102: 99: 97: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1682: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1661: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1618: 1610: 1607: 1604:, clause 5). 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1579: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1519: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438:New Statesman 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1219: 1211: 1200: 1196: 1190: 1186: 1181: 1178: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146:Israel Shamir 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109:194.176.105.6 1106: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080:194.176.105.6 1077: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 981: 978: 975: 972: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 946: 934: 930: 926: 922: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 911: 909: 893: 890: 889: 888: 884: 880: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 865: 864: 863: 859: 857: 841: 840: 836: 833: 832: 827: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 814: 810: 805: 802: 801: 792: 788: 784: 777: 775: 774: 773: 769: 767: 753: 750: 749: 748: 744: 740: 736: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 723: 721: 705: 702: 701: 700: 699: 696: 692: 688: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 672: 651: 648: 647: 646: 645: 640: 634: 632: 624: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 584: 583: 578: 577: 576: 573: 568: 567: 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 545: 544: 543: 540: 535: 534: 526: 525: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 503: 500: 497: 492: 491: 484: 480: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 460: 456: 452: 451: 450: 449: 445: 442: 441: 436: 433: 428: 427: 420: 419: 418: 417: 413: 410: 409: 408: 396: 392: 388: 384: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 366: 362: 361: 360: 357: 352: 351: 344: 340: 339: 338: 334: 330: 326: 324: 323: 322: 321: 318: 313: 312: 303: 294: 287: 283: 282: 281: 277: 275: 260: 256: 255: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 221: 220: 217: 216: 215: 211: 209: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 182: 178: 172: 171: 170: 169: 165: 163: 144: 140: 136: 133: 132: 127: 126: 121: 117: 114: 113: 109: 108: 107: 100: 98: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1657: 1627: 1622: 1584: 1562:AusLondonder 1526:edit warring 1523: 1222: 1215: 1176: 1150:Philip Cross 1142:Ernst Zündel 1133: 1103:— Preceding 1074:— Preceding 1061: 1022:Philip Cross 1018:The Guardian 1017: 1013: 998: 950: 907: 903: 902: 855: 851: 850: 765: 761: 760: 734: 719: 715: 714: 670: 666: 665: 656: 653:"segregation 642: 638: 635: 628: 592: 587: 586: 581: 580: 563: 530: 487: 458: 454: 443: 423: 411: 406: 347: 308: 296: 292: 273: 269: 268: 258: 207: 203: 202: 173: 161: 157: 156: 148: 142: 138: 134: 119: 115: 104: 96: 70: 43: 37: 1177:anti-Semite 1070:WP:SYNTHNOT 149:Thank you. 36:This is an 1223:percentage 1218:the source 956:robots.txt 90:Archive 10 1538:vandalism 921:Olowe2011 908:Olowe2011 856:Olowe2011 804:Olowe2011 766:Olowe2011 720:Olowe2011 671:Olowe2011 274:Olowe2011 208:Olowe2011 162:Olowe2011 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1602:WP:3RRNO 1476:Ghmyrtle 1462:Dtellett 1458:Ghmyrtle 1423:Ghmyrtle 1395:Ghmyrtle 1353:Ghmyrtle 1307:Ghmyrtle 1305:I agree 1279:Ghmyrtle 1232:Ghmyrtle 1195:ZScarpia 1185:Dtellett 1105:unsigned 1076:unsigned 783:Ghmyrtle 739:Ghmyrtle 704:Ghmyrtle 687:Ghmyrtle 597:Mabelina 549:Mabelina 515:Mabelina 464:Mabelina 302:Mabelina 123:notable. 1524:Due to 1228:WP:NPOV 1045:Cpsoper 984:Cpsoper 979:and JC 960:Cpsoper 139:opinion 39:archive 735:before 509:& 1663:Hcobb 1630:Hcobb 1578:Slakr 1547:slakr 1134:Times 483:WP:OR 135:Issue 116:Issue 16:< 1667:talk 1649:talk 1634:talk 1566:talk 1480:talk 1466:talk 1446:talk 1427:talk 1413:talk 1399:talk 1385:talk 1371:talk 1357:talk 1343:talk 1329:talk 1315:talk 1297:talk 1283:talk 1266:talk 1251:talk 1236:talk 1189:talk 1154:talk 1138:here 1113:talk 1084:talk 1049:talk 1026:talk 1016:and 999:Mail 988:talk 964:talk 929:talk 883:talk 813:talk 787:talk 743:talk 691:talk 601:talk 553:talk 519:talk 468:talk 391:talk 385:(?) 372:talk 333:talk 306:? -- 245:talk 229:talk 181:talk 143:fact 120:fact 1440:". 1193:← 593:etc 459:ie. 455:ie. 1669:) 1651:) 1636:) 1582:-- 1568:) 1540:, 1482:) 1468:) 1448:) 1429:) 1415:) 1401:) 1387:) 1373:) 1359:) 1345:) 1331:) 1317:) 1299:) 1285:) 1268:) 1253:) 1238:) 1156:) 1115:) 1086:) 1051:) 1028:) 966:) 931:) 885:) 815:) 789:) 745:) 693:) 641:. 603:) 585:- 555:) 528:-- 521:) 502:# 485:-- 470:) 421:-- 393:) 374:) 345:-- 335:) 327:? 247:) 231:) 183:) 86:→ 1665:( 1647:( 1632:( 1592:ℱ 1586:ℕ 1580:: 1576:@ 1564:( 1478:( 1464:( 1444:( 1425:( 1411:( 1397:( 1383:( 1369:( 1355:( 1341:( 1327:( 1313:( 1295:( 1281:( 1264:( 1249:( 1234:( 1201:} 1187:( 1152:( 1111:( 1082:( 1047:( 1024:( 990:) 986:( 962:( 927:( 901:' 881:( 849:' 811:( 785:( 759:' 741:( 713:' 689:( 664:' 599:( 571:ℱ 565:ℕ 551:( 538:ℱ 532:ℕ 517:( 495:ℱ 489:ℕ 466:( 431:ℱ 425:ℕ 389:( 370:( 355:ℱ 349:ℕ 331:( 316:ℱ 310:ℕ 304:: 300:@ 267:' 243:( 227:( 201:' 179:( 155:' 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index