Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 5

2204:

biggest thing about Corbyn, but this is only one line in a brief "personal life" subsection. As the current content notes, the media has frequently described him, as part of its obsession with his supposed frugality and asceticism, as teetotal. That content sat here as gospel and "well sourced" for a while. His own words appear to qualify that, and that detail was added subsequently. User:John has also failed to address, despite requests to that effect, what he means by the "well-sourced version". Does he mean leaving it as was, with what appears to be an inaccuracy and without Corbyn's own words? Or does he mean removing it altogther on the basis that none of it is well sourced? The former is not acceptable, surely, nor is there consensus or policy to back that. The second option is more open to debate, albeit more on the basis of overall significance or lack of it, but hardly worth all this. I'd argue a brief mention of the fact that he has been widely so described and the (perfectly well-sourced, as discussed) statement that appears to contradict the description is reasonable. As before, the obsession with this one sentence is a little weird. And on that point, I think I'm finally done. Thanks for kicking this all off.

3680:

interview with the Mirror with the subject of this BLP – which by definition is only going to appear in the Mirror – contradicting that, in his own words. No one seems to agree with your "understanding" that BLPSOURCES bans tabloid papers as sources. Even if it did, are you seriously saying that BLP policy is better served by this article retaining, without contradiction, the initial inaccuracy until either the Guardian or BBC cites and repeats the Mirror quote or until Corbyn says exactly the same thing again, but this time in an interview with either of them? As asked above, are you suggesting that Corbyn is lying, or that the Mirror made this quote up, or that the words, rather than probably clarifying a point, are so derogatory they simply must be removed? This really shouldn't be that difficult, and it's bizarre that a huge thread has developed about an aspect of Corbyn that is relatively trivial all told.

1800:. I have always respected your contributions at this page. The point I am making, if taken, does seek to improve the article, by reminding all of the absolute importance of informed, community-driven and consultative encyclopaedia building. A large amount of time and effort was wasted on this pointless issue. I feel the approach taken by Mabelina, in trying to force this inaccuracy on the page by pretentious "city lawyer" posturing was very unhelpful, and example of how not to work with others. This continued to the extent of near pretence of membership of the royal court "I can assure you that The Royal Household made appropriate discreet enquiries". This conduct was disdainful. It implied Mabelina's supposed out-of-wiki knowledge or connections should railroad this page into inserting crap. 2997:

someone responsible for the No.10 website jumped the gun in putting Rt. Hon. before he'd been formally admitted, and - given the controversy over whether he is/isn't/should/shouldn't be Rt.Hon. - someone else then suggested that the website mention should (in our terms) be "reverted". It doesn't sound to me as though that's a "snub", more like a cock-up. It may well happen regularly, and the only reason it's been noticed this time is that - unusually if not unprecedentedly - some people think that Corbyn won't or shouldn't become a PC member. He's said he will, in due course. It's probably something of a non-story being whipped up into a story by anti-Corbyn media, and I agree that we should just let it rest until we can report something conclusive.

2138:(whether favourable or hostile) is what matters as much as anything. Broadsheets can be as lazy, polemical, flippant or trivial as any other papers, even in proper "news" pieces, and tabloids can do proper factual reporting occasionally. I agree that too many BLPs are ruined and left utterly tedious by people scraping up huge amounts of negative (or positive) comment and insinuation from a range of broadsheets, chucking it on the page and rejecting any attempt to remove it because "they're all RS", but there's no need (or policy basis) to go the other way and bar particular sources altogether. Apply caution and common sense to every piece of material that's being used as a source, wherever it's from. 3327:, in particular the point that a straight interview with Corbyn with a political editor, whether in the Mirror or any other newspaper, is a good source for what he said in that interview, and probably provides better material in this context than lazily recycled, and probably barely fact-checked, descriptions found in "10 things you never knew about Corbyn" pieces that happen to have appeared in generally loftier places. And BLPSOURCES, read properly, does not anyway ordain a blanket ban on using tabloid newspapers, just tabloid journalism, which is a different point. And even if anyone thought it did, 133:- "There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Centre was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram. Can’t we learn some lessons over this?". 1053:

announcing his appointment. I like Corbyn, but just so we get the facts straight, it is he who has wriggled around on this issue, not the Government nor Buckingham Palace. Furthermore this whole vexed issue surfaced when the BBC did indeed test his republican credentials (in the usual probing journalistic way) so please do not make false assertions. In the spirit of co-operation a quick note of acknowledgement would be appreciated and I do hope you approve of my latest tidying

1468:

confirmed; nor does Corbyn, based on his last comments on the matter, seem to think he is formally a member yet, hence we're better off not asserting he is. Also, as I've pointed out I think twice now across these discussions, the Downing St announcement does not, as worded, explicitly say he is a member or contradict anything else we can see. It says he has been approved for membership, which is technically a different point. So we can't rely on that to prove the point.

31: 3362:

and the Mirror a tabloid? The Telegraph certainly looks like one, printing blatant politically partisan lies and weird photoshop jobs. How can someone argue with a straight face that the Telegraph is reliable when it is printing overt lies and disinformation yet simultaneously argue the Mirror is unreliable when directly quoting Corbyn in a one-one-way interview? By the way, I notice Martinevans is back already with his painful

729:

happened behind closed (royal) doors - it seems Corbyn has stumbled across a way of causing a problem to HMG and HM - unfortunately this will not be rehearsed in public by those in the know - or at least not yet - leaving a vacuum for the non-aficionados to fill. Nonetheless, it would be far better that Wiki does not propagate inaccuracies issued by ignorant BBC journalists. How else to put it - it will be sorted..! M

2835:

dreadful later in life to merit the removal of that honour. The word is not correctly used when in the situation when no honour has ever been awarded (situation b) where there is merely a textual correction to a website that wrongly shows that it was so awarded. So the lie I referred to was the use of language to convey the impression that we are in a situation (a) in Corbyn's case, when clearly it is situation (b) --

1739:"Hi there - I'm back! In fact I've just returned from a City lawyers' function where among other topics of conversation Jeremy Corbyn cropped up. You may be intrigued to know that unanimous consensus was quickly formed without need of explanation as to how The Leader of HM Opposition (thereby prospective PM) does not know whether or not he is a Privy Counsellor (given that his appointment has been formally announced)" 624: 3850:

sources to be assessed in context in each case. The idea that a lazily recycled media label is "well-sourced" and to be preferred as a description of an otherwise inocuous fact over Corbyn's own words, just because it appears in a few broadsheets or on the BBC website is just bizarre. As is spending all this time arguing the toss over it and threatening people on their talk pages.

4222:, Corbyn's head of policy, has been in the press recently. Some press sources are representing this as a struggle between wings of the party. I'm not sure if this belongs in the Corbyn article, but it certainly belongs somewhere -- a leader's senior aide being suspended from the party at the request of other party members is probably unprecedented. -- 3881:, I am stunned by your arrogance on this. In fact, I cannot believe you would suggest the words of Corbyn are unreliable and should not even be included in an article about...Corbyn himself. What gives you the right to "mark" the source as "controversial"? In that case I "mark" The Telegraph as unsuitable for all BLPs in all cases without exception. 1670:

David Cameron in exactly the same circumstances, a fact which is glossed over in the articles, shows that this is just party propaganda which has no place in a serious biography. We can report that he has joined this esteemed organisation when and if it is confirmed, all this speculation in the meantime is pointless, and only exists to denegrate. --

1386:

as a counsellor, over 2 weeks after the appointment was announced on the Number 10 website, there does seem more evidence to suggest he is not, though I completely accept it's ambiguous. For now, I suggest the PC appointment is removed from his page, though the matter may become moot fairly soon as I suspect he'll do the necessary at some point.

4577:, the main features are complete non-violence, celibacy, self-sufficiency (i.e. no imports/exports), fasting and wearing homespun cloth. Corbyn does not fit many of those (possibly you could extend the wearing homespun cloth to his rejection of expensive suits), although you could certainly argue that he has been influenced by them. 1959:. Regarding the Guardian, it is a quality publication. Opinions in the paper lean to the left, but reporting is generally fair. The Guardian has not often been accused of printing blatant lies (Queen snub story) or weird tabloid photoshop jobs. Libel actions have been more prominent against The Telegraph ( 1223:, although honesty is always deemed to be the best policy. It is thoroughly amazing, don't you think? that the status of the Leader of HM Official Opposition is so confused - he should either say, NO or YES to joining. Anyway, it is quite clear as far as Parliament/Royal Household/No. 10 are concerned, 4417:

Even at the risk of the Labour Party losing the next election, Tony and his mates are determined to undermine the present Leader. So, what at first might seem like a reasonably minor issue, now involves the future direction of the British Labour Party. That said, how might Knowledge (XXG) report this

3849:

Precisely. One person on a talk page cannot declare that their interpretation of what constitutes policy trumps everyone else's. There is, as pointed out several times by several people, no explicit bar on tabloid newspapers in BLPSOURCES. Policy on reliable sources, by contrast, explicitly calls for

2996:

article no doubt does contain factual elements, you have to read the words very carefully to find them, given that the article as a whole (and the headline, and the picture) are clearly slanted in such a way as to present the story in the most unfavourable way possible to Corbyn. It seems to me that

1688:

I agree, I have questioned the reliability of The Telegraph as a source, at least for matters regarding Corbyn and the Labour Party. It has shown itself to disregard basic standards of journalism and honesty. It appears as little more than the in-house newsletter of the Conservative Party, and a poor

1467:

I'm not sure a random collection of City lawyers are any more expert on this issue than anyone else, nor is an account of supposed discussions with a bunch of them going to decide the issue. The point is that it does not appear to be confirmed in most places of record where one would expect to see it

300:

Since we don't know if/how this will develop then there's no "desired addition" to post here yet, but as the talk page is a place for discussing potential material for an article then it is the appropriate place to query whether to include it. You have stated your opposition, but beyond that I really

184:

I disagree that covering it here would be a personal attack against the subject. We did not make the comments after all; they were made by the Prime Minister, and they're pretty strong accusations to level at the leader of the opposition. Whether we cover them here though depends on the impact of his

4727:

There are a few issues here. Accepting an award isn't the same thing as self-identifying as a follower, and we'd need an RS clearly stating the latter. Also, the sourcing required to show that mention of an award is due (worth mentioning) should really be independent of the organization (or at least

3954:

Can you clarify exactly what your position is, because it does seem to waver a bit. Are you maintaining (a) that the Daily Mirror can never be used in a BLP. or (b) the Daily Mirror can be sometimes used for non contentious material, albeit it is not a preferred source, and that this particular edit

3741:

Yes, to some degree. Consider this challenged, and consider that I am marking it as contentious. This material is potentially far from trivial. Pending better sourcing, I'm afraid this cannot remain as it stands. A couple of folks on an individual talk page cannot trump long-standing policy. As I've

3662:

As others have said, BLPSOURCES states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the information about his drinking habits has not been challenged so far and

3502:

considers to be a broadsheet-sourced "misleading description" on the page? If it was Edward Lucas' claim that Corbyn had a "desire to appease Russia by sacrificing Ukraine" then I've just removed it (clearly neither a particularly representative nor evidence-supported criticism) though it was rather

3361:

I believe the Mirror is acceptable in this context. There is no doubt that some purists misunderstand the reluctance to use tabloid sources as a blanket ban, in all contexts, without exception. I firmly believe this is an exception. I also wonder how some editors judge The Telegraph as a non-tabloid

3331:

while leaving the material it supported is hardly likely to be an improvement to the page, or to be evidence for the fact that those who have removed this thought that hard about what they were doing. FWIW, I'd happily have lost the second bit of info sourced from it later by another editor, ie that

4068:

That helps to assuage the attempted "no tabloids!" injunction, but it might be thought equally dubious by some, not unreasonably, being a passing mention in a column rather than a clear exposition in a news piece. Plus of course it's as likely that Jack and/or the piece's editor phrased it based on

3895:

Shocked and stunned, eh? I favour removing the questionable material unless better sources can be found, per BLPSOURCES. Any good encyclopedic reason to keep it? Quibbling over how much he drinks and stating he likes to read and write? Using tabloids? On a high-profile politician's page? Never mind

3439:

Even if such a rigid reading was correct, it's odd that people citing BLP rules seem quite happy for that to lead to what is probably a misleading description of a BLP subject remaining on the page unqualified – simply because it has appeared in a couple of broadsheet sources – while insisting that

2834:

I'm not really sure whether this is or isn't the question you are referring to, but I'll have a go at answering it. To strip someone of a title they have been given is how you would describe situations such as (a) stripping a knighthood from someone that was formally knighted and then did something

2766:

Indeed, but the use of the word "snub" does reek of bias. However, there are some useful bits of information in the article, but I would argue that it should really inform our decision making on whether or not to add Privy Council membership to the article, rather than lead to any additions (mainly

2232:

ps: I don't think "familiarity with the policies and practices of this site" was a problem for many "folks" here apart from, regardless of their loud assertions of their own rectitude, one rather egregious exception, which is what led to this ridiculous debate in the first place (yes, I know I then

2203:

If we're going to revisit the topic of the section above, rather than debate the Telegraph per se, there are two issues here. Is the discrete topic at issue significant and worth mentioning? If so, what sources will we use to address it? No this isn't Dubya territory and it is, as noted, hardly the

1746:

Embarrassingly, despite all this bluster and talk of "city lawyers" the facts have been proven today. The Privy Council has made clear Corbyn is not currently a member. Expert on the Privy Council David Rogers clarified the matter. Mr Rogers said:" Number 10 had confused a recommendation to appoint

1385:

for a biog of someone who is). This section of the website is pretty up to date (for example they are already showing the SNP down to 55 seats following Thomson's resignation of the whip). Given no news outlets have announced he has actually joined and the PC Office website is still not showing him

1093:

despite his trying to cover this up before Labour's Annual Conference for reasons you might just be able to conjecture, but what bemuses me is how two of the most authoritative websites, namely www.parliament.uk & www.gov.uk are seemingly dismissed by "Wiki" in favour of adhering to those which

1052:

has been made; suffice to say that Corbyn is a most unusual case because anybody else would by now delight in being a Privy Counsellor and whilst The Queen technically has the power to "command" appointment I can assure you that The Royal Household made appropriate discreet enquiries prior to HMG's

3801:

I suggest taking a breather from all the bluster. Propose an edit; see if it gains consensus. You started this section by complaining about an edit that reverted your deletion of the Mirror and associated text. It's quite clear that that edit doesn't have consensus. So perhaps if you suggest a

3605:

Interesting. So you think on an article about a "left-wing" politician, there is no problem with Knowledge (XXG) using an assertion from a "right-wing" broadsheet, so long as we also have a rebuttal from a "left-wing" tabloid. The matter of Corbyn's drinking habits; if it's so very important, what

2045:

All newspapers, everywhere, have a bias and tend to editorialise the facts they report, and most have wealthy owners. Unlike the Morning Star, the bias in the Telegraph's editorial line is also based primarily around selling newspapers to a particular demographic rather than being "anchored in the

1996:

I question why The Telegraph is still viewed as inherently more reliable than the Morning Star or the Daily Mirror. Why do we start from that presumptuous position? Is it purely the printing format? If the Sunday Sport was printed in broadsheet form would it be reliable? What happens if newspapers

1814:

I also want to add I have nothing personally against Mabelina. I don't want to sound too much as if I'm gloating. I'm sure they have lots to contribute to the project. I just feel this did not need to go on for so long, nor did Mabelia have to adopt an approach that got peoples backs up. Hopefully

3539:

So the consensus among those commenting here is that it is ok on a BLP to balance out weak material from a good but hostile source, with contrary material from a weak source? That it is so vital to "cover" the matter of Corbyn's supposed near-teetotalism and (seriously) his propensity to read and

2872:

I think I must be missing the point of your inquiry - are you suggesting some change or improvement to the article? Certainly there is no direct quote in the article so knowing what exact wording may have been used is impossible. What is clear, is that to strip anyone of a title in this case is a

2092:

Hmm -- these responses are reasonable and thoughtful. Perhaps that's grounds for reconsidering my proposal and thinking about usage of the Telegraph on a case-by-case basis. In fact, maybe we should take that sort of approach on other sources people have worried about -- such as, let's say, the

1378:

From what I can see, Corbyn is not yet a PC. Mabelina, you linked to a page on the parliament site that describes him as Rt Hon, however I suspect that all that has been done there is someone has taken out the words "Harriet Harman" and replace them with "Jeremy Corbyn" without bothering to think

690:

I can understand that - it is a great pity that the BBC spread an inaccurate story about Privy Counsellors having to kneel at their investiture, a procedure reserved - of course - only for those receiving the accolade of the Realm. It would be better if Wiki could correct this & I am happy to

2784:

Good to see you not making puerile "jokes" for a change. However, the fact you deny bias in that article is almost a joke in itself. The article claimed Corbyn was "stripped" of his title by the Council, apparently on the wishes of the Queen. That, as others pointed out, was an actual lie. It is

2033:

Standard Knowledge (XXG) policy for BLPs still applies, which means reporting in a dispassionate manner (and avoiding newspapers' hyperbolic terminology like "snub"), requiring multiple sources for contentious claims, not assuming that just because something happens to be reported in a newspaper

1963:

has successfully sued, as has a Palestinian charity mentioned on this talkpage previously). The Guardian is owned by an independent trust, The Telegraph is owned by conservative billionaire tax-exiles. Would the Morning Star be regarded as a reliable source on a Tory biography? No. Why should an

1669:

This story was utter rubbish and shows the continued level of bias of the telegraph, which has lost all pretence of serious journalism. The story carefully implies he has been stripped of a titled that he never had nor never claimed. The fact that he seems to be treated completely differently to

1557:

Interesting on the BBC report today to hear JC himself use the phrase "I've been appointed". Though given the Privy Council Office still doesn't show him as a member I think it's best we hold tight for now. BTW, the PC Office do now show Angus Robertson as a PC member, and they didn't before the

1019:, and inserted this crap "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"" 728:

Let me advise you that it has been decided that royal courtiers will work out a way for the avoidance of The Queen being embarrassed. This ceremony, unlike National Honours Lists, has never before been exposed to such scrutiny & in fact (and fortunately for Corbyn) no one will ever know what

4889:

Gosh, the fuss that has been about this petty issue, on Wiki, and, even more ridiculously, off Wiki has been absolutely ludicrous. How can anyone be so obsessed with wanting someone to join an undemocratic, unelected, unaccountable, secretive club? We've had a number of title and style obsessed

2041:

however slanted, actually suggests the Telegraph has stopped checking facts (c.f. the Sun and the Mail reporting allegations against Corbyn discredited back in 1987 as fact, despite the Mail clearly knowing about the retraction). Similarly the story about Corbyn's "Right Honourable" title being

1834:

website does appear to be updated on a regular basis (Angus Robertson was not listed as a member on Wednesday last week, on Thursday he attended the PC meeting and was sworn in, by Friday he was added to the list of counsellors), so I feel this should really be the only source we need to go by.

1833:

of the evidence available, not just the bits that suited one particular side or the other. For my part, I was never sure one way or the other, but was just erring on the side of caution given the ambiguity of the information. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, the Privy Council Office

465:

As Andy Dingley says, hard left is a pejorative term, and Corbyn is someone who the term has been applied to by those in the sources. Clearly the Corbyn article shouldn't list him as being hard left, it is a derogatory term and is not relevant in a BLP, especially for a politician. However that

2734:

The fact JC is accused in the headline of "snubbing" the Queen suggests a blatantly biased article. If it were a snub, then Cameron also snubbed the Queen for 3 months in 2005-06. Perhaps if we look hard enough on the Telegraph website we will find a similar article about his disrespect to the

3679:

My argument on this point doesn't have much to do with bias or political leaning. As far as I recall, both the Guardian and the BBC are among those respectable sources that have lazily, it would seem, recycled the description "teetotal" (@Dtellett, that is what I was referring to). We have an

2137:

More important – and more in line with actual WP policies as stated – than declaring a particular source always OK/"reliable" or always forbidden/"unreliable" is actually looking at the context in each case. The distinction between verifiable and significant fact and commentary/interpretation

319:, see your comment, Cameron made some rather strong accusations in his Conservative Party address this morning that we should probably cover here, such biased additions and even suggestions that such content should be added to a wikipedia bio, the life story of a living person, is sad really. 3293:

to protect people from the possibility of harm. Since there is no risk of harm from these things, BLP does not apply here; generally speaking, BLP does not apply to positive coverage, even if you feel that it is "self-serving dreck." Additionally, remember that it's totally fine to use a

2573:

being accused of anti-semitism. I'm not sure why any false allegations about him are of encyclopedic value, unless they gain widespread public traction in other sources. (If this discussion continues, can I suggest it would be better to move it to a new thread at the foot of the page?)

281:

In such a clear attacking partisan situation as the opposite leader speech at his party conference to his loyal supporters, it is much better to not report his comments here than to then have to report that they were pure biased partisan lies when that was so obvious in the first place.

2799:"Snub" reeks of the kind of four-letter word, that a broadsheet sub-editor loves to use as a punchy tabloid-style finish to a headline for an article, that might otherwise look like as electrifying as a dead haddock, and which is guaranteed to get tongues a-wagging at Knowledge (XXG). 333:

What is sad is that you can't seem to move on from this issue, but are instead levelling accusations of bias at me. My original suggestion had nothing to do with bias or personal opinion. At this point, and as my final post on this thread, I feel it is appropriate to remind you of the

3163:

BLPSOURCES is there to protect living persons from defamatory content - you are however on a, no doubt noble and well intentioned, mission to remove all tabloid sourcing. Lets not pretend that carries any broad consensus however, despite the vehemence with which you hold that belief.

1248:

Its back in again, added by Mabelina. I have removed one addition already so I won't take it out but there are clear multiple objections to it at the moment, what is wrong with waiting for clear confirmation, it is not important enough to row about so much, just wait till its clear.

4787:

Why is Corbyn styled "The Right Honourable"? According to the page on this particular style, it is used by peers, Privy Counsellors and a number of officeholders (including current and former Cabinet members) but Corbyn does not fall in any of those categories. Why then the style?

3572:

No indeed. It certainly wasn't my intention. Do please explain where I am going wrong in my understanding of your position. My own preference would be to remove the dubious material pending better sourcing. This is also what our policy suggests. What do you think of that proposal?

2368:

Right, so no objection to continuing discussion at the appropriate section, and archiving this one which was on the subject of a blanket ban on the use of the Telegraph. For which I believe the consensus was nay, and therefore further discussion in this section being off-topic.

3125:

is a reliable source for BLPs and I think it lies square in the middle of the sort of source BLPSOURCES was written to protect our project and the living subjects of our articles against. If there are no objections, and no better sources can be found I will take it out again.

2034:

actually means it's significant and attributing anything which represents an opinion. Which means "context" applies on a line-by-line basis, not through new page-level rules to block sources otherwise considered reliable in their fact-checking and notable for their commentary.

1075:- it is curious as to why you are attempting to escalate matters, when in fact we are all for the most part working together, nonetheless since you deign to contradict what is plain to see on www.gov.uk & www.parliament.uk, please be so kind as to answer the following: 2516:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for idle chit chat, it is not a forum for debate, there are plenty of other websites for that. These Talk poages are here to discuss changes to content, to ensure that wikipedia articles are consitent with policy and indeed with each other.

1932:

My opinion is that we should not take a view on this. We should use factual sources where they give facts, and avoid commentary pieces. Admittedly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two but we should try to do so. Refusing to use the

1042:

article with which I trust you will concur, since they are in line with this page's talk comments... I am in no way enamoured by your uber-aggressive language and attitude but this article is hardly worth falling out over, you will notice no attempt to explain further

2289:

since issue with Telegraph is now resolved, I would suggest picking up the alcohol issue in the section above where it was raised, and I have added a further source. If there is no objection I will archive this section as comments are now either resolved or redundant

1267:- yes I did amend Corbyn's correct style since no doubt we all would like Wiki to be correct... I have provided empirical evidence via www.gov.uk & www.parliament.uk - any further media reports will be second-hand info, so what else could Wiki require by way of 4477:

Thanks, I have seen that he won that award in particular for his "opposition to neo-colonial wars and nuclear weapons" but I don't think this is the same as complete opposition to all forms of violence and and also his economic ideas do not seem to match up with

1318:

was quickly formed without need of explanation as to how The Leader of HM Opposition (thereby prospective PM) does not know whether or not he is a Privy Counsellor (given that his appointment has been formally announced). I mention this because my dealings with

2166:

Having established that folks have some familiarity with the policies and practices of the site, are we any further forward with the thinking on us displaying a factoid about the drinking practices of a prominent politician, sourced from a tabloid? Other than

356:

Not every partisan criticism and personal attack made (especially one in which the subjects words have been maliciously and deliberately taken out of context) during a political party conference speech about another person are worthy of inclusion here.

1534:

to be confirmed in person at a later practicable date - the confusion is mired, perhaps deliberately, since no indication has been given that he will attend in person or as to whether he values its role (which is equivalent to other councils of

1861:

consensus on the proposal that "the Telegraph be deemed incompatible with WP:RS" seems to have been established in the negative, feel free to undo my hatting of the discussion if you wish to explore this further, there is also a thread on RS:N

373:

If Corbyn experienced an unusual burst of unparliamentary language and replied that Cameron was a "lying prick" would that deserve coverage in Cameron's article? Would Cameron's likely abusive reply then need coverage here? Where would it end?

4500:

which adds credibility. The category page says "Gandhians are followers of the philosophy of Mohandas K. Gandhi". I imagine all those in the cat do not follow every statement of Gandhi to the letter. India does itself possess nuclear weapons.

1747:

with an actual appointment" and added that Downing Street "probably hadn't cleared their statements with the Privy Council Office". He said the confusion was caused by a statement on the Cabinet Office's website (relied on so consistently by

4621:

I agree, there is a difference between upholding two values (which many ideologies believe in) which happen to be Gandhian values and being a Gandhian. Until we have a better source saying that Corbyn is a Gandhian then I would leave it out

3440:

the subject's own words, which appear to correct the inaccuracy, must be excised. Unless, that is, the claim is that the Mirror's political editor is making the quote up, Corbyn is lying or it's all true but somehow too disparaging of him.

3102:

is not self-evidently true. It would depend on whether you think that his liking for reading and writing falls within the definition of "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Is that a claim that you would like to challenge?

4411:"The MPs who have taken this up and the people driving this aren't really terribly concerned with this one individual, they are trying to undermine the leader who has just been elected and that's completely unacceptable," he told the BBC. 922:

Will you please stop going on with this Privy Council bullshit. He is not a member yet. Simple as that. The Privy Council's own website says so, and he says so himself. We will not add false information on the basis of your bizarre rants.

3514:

clearly appropriate to use as a source for relevant and appropriate quotations from Corbyn's columns, and probably preferable to include if and when the digested contents of such columns are reproduced in mainstream media commentary

3332:

he "likes reading and writing", but the point about drinking is important, relatively speaking, as it contradicts the lazy and pithy – but supposedly impeccably sourced – epithet "teetotal" which otherwise sits there unchallenged.

2046:

political programme of the Communist Party of Britain", which might answer the question about why the latter source usually isn't considered representative of mainstream criticism or particularly reliable for reporting of facts.

165:

Camerons speech requires covering on his page if his comments or the speech is really noteworthy, adding the delibrately attacking partisan political coments of the leader of the opposition party here is unduely attacking, imo.

2037:

Love or loathe the emphasis that the Telegraph is putting on the uninteresting (and not worthy of WP inclusion unless it develops into something bigger) Privy Council saga, I'm not persuaded by arguments that news coverage like

3984:. Please be my guest and waste the time of ArbCom over whether a politicians words in a direct interview are reliable and suitable for their own bio. I feel you are being unreasonable, stubborn and inflexible over this, sadly. 2171:, where it was justifiably a significant part of the subject's "story", I cannot recall a situation like this arising previously. I think it is better if we omit this entirely, or else stick to a well-sourced version of it. -- 865:

Point a) was rubbished by various as far as I can tell - he has been appointed a PC by www.gov.uk & b) there is no reliable proof "at this time" yet Wiki continues to propagate inacurracies - you see the difference? M

2973:

can be used as a reliable source only for non-living people, yes? That's going to be quite a trawl through the articles. I think I'll leave the discussion at this point thanks, especially after AusLondoner's warm wishes.

1227:

Corbyn has joined - I have to admit this is a first regarding appointments to the Privy Council, so let's hope Wiki catches up sooner rather than later on the correct form. Much appreciated for getting back to me. Best M

4728:

it should be obvious that there would be such independent sourcing). This aspect is quite important as there are a lot of grandiose sounding yet non-notable vanity awards out there which regularly appear in wiki bios.--

2857:

to strip Jeremy Corbyn of his “Right Honourable” status after Number 10 wrongly implied the Labour leader had joined the Privy Council, The Daily Telegraph can disclose." How do we know what the Queen's advisers said?

1941:– or even, some would argue, the supposedly liberal BBC – for articles about Cameron, for example. I don't think we should go down that road - but of course we should continue to be careful in the sources we do use. 3140:

We should avoid the use of tabloids wherever possible in BLPs. If this article were to be assessed for quality then the reviewers there would want any redtop sources taken out. By way of a cautionary tale, I took

1742:"This really won't do - but I don't want to get blacked as a result. "Suspecting" something and this that & all the other simply does not get over the www.gov.uk explicit announcement of his appointment as PC" 412:

article, dealing with the usually pejorative term applied to Labour politicians in the '90s, could use some more eyeballs. Particularly over who should be included there, particularly Corbyn and Abbott. Thanks

1400:

This really won't do - but I don't want to get blacked as a result. "Suspecting" something and this that & all the other simply does not get over the www.gov.uk explicit announcement of his appointment as

1912:

but rather to consider the context in which it might be used. So we don't need to discuss whether the Telegraph should or shouldn't be used elsewhere. Instead the question is whether it is proper to use it

4316:

Fisher is head of policy for the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore involved in shaping policy for what may potentially be the next British goverment. That's a pretty significant position to be in. --

3708:

Consensus seems to be pretty clear here I'd say. BLPSOURCES clearly dictates a higher standard only for the sourcing of contentious material. If it was an outright ban on using tabloids it would say that.

705:

You need to provide reliable sources which contradict the information in the bbc article, but in the context of the discussion around Corbyn. To go and find primary sources not mentioning Corbyn would be

4069:

the Mirror interview and/or even this page as it is that this is genuinely independent confirmation as such. Overall, I still think citing Corbyn's own words from the Mirror is the clearest option here.

2636:

so its clear now - the number 10 website posted he was a member and he isn't until he attends. The telegraph is now posting all sorts of biased comments which we shouldn't bother repeating here. This is

4605:

It made him an award, that is referenced and I'm sure he was grateful, Social Justice and non-violence are not the exclusive preserver of Gandhi so it is not a sufficient source to call him a Gandhian

1421:

There is clear ambiguity on this issue, with conflicting information in different official sources. We should definitely err on the side of caution and only include the title when there is certainty. --

4963:"Mr Corbyn is expected to kiss the Queen’s hand as part of the ceremony ... He might hop from stool to stool, before brushing his lips across her hand... " Sounds quite romantic, not to say gymnastic. 2905:

I've made my position very clear, to claim that a logical impossibility was done is self-evidently untrue. Is there some improvement to the article you are suggesting, or is this just idle chitchat? --

2039: 4681:, I cannot see how that applies in this instance. Could you clarify what part applies here? Is it "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources"? 2716:

Nobody has been stripped of a title, that is a lie. To imply that they have been is the whole point of a very biased article. To see that it has no place in a BLP doesn't require much common sense. --

1329:. The Wiki consensus procedure seems to invite minority groups to cast their competing interests into the public domain and demand rights and recognition. But because your right is my duty, and 2762:

The headline (quite calm by the standards of many newspapers), which we'd never report here, is actually "Privy Council snub". As I mentioned, the Queen pictured below it is not a real Queen.

1964:

equally politically partisan publication be regarded as one then? Because it prints on broadsheet? I do not believe the Telegraph is a suitable source for this bio, nor increasingly for any.

1724:"I've just amended Corbyn's article to reflect his status as a Privy Counsellor, although I am quite aware that this could get reverted - however, it is actually the correct state of affairs" 4444:

do you have a source for Corbyn being a Gandhian? I know that he has said he cannot think of any situation where he would commit troops to war, but I am not sure that makes him a Gandhian (

2699: 1606: 1289:

and there are multiple other reliable externals already posted above in this section for you that bring doubts to his inclusion and his own comments regarding the title - what is your hurry

3591:. I wouldn't be caught dead reading a tabloid on the Tube, and as a general matter I wouldn't encourage using one here -- but I don't see a need to be so rigid about it in this instance. 4591:

So did the Gandhi Foundation make a mistake? It awarded Corbyn for "consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhi values of social justice and non‐violence"

1077:

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

4414:"If you are one of those New Labour MPs who thinks that the Blair government was the apex of human civilisation you have got to come to terms with the fact that the party has moved on." 3628:

There you go again. I said nothing of the sort. Not only that, I have made it clear that I think there are problems in using the "right-wing" broadsheet in question on this article.

3298:

source; the question is whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not whether they have strong opinions. (Now, the question of whether covering this is giving it

1982:? Any decision to exclude one of the main UK media sources from a high-profile article like this one should in my view be taken by the widest range of experienced editors possible. 1323:

on this matter for some unknown reason seem to get ever more tortuous, so it was pleasing to have such unstinting clarity from legal professionals, who all agree that Corbyn is now a

4942: 4515:

Its not enough to call him a Gandhian or even a follower of Gandhi. An award given does not define someone's ideology. What matters is what sources say about his statements ----

4337:. But, if the NEC report criticises Corbyn, that would almost certainly be a sufficiently notable matter for inclusion. The Fisher article, by the way, needs to be expanded. 1770:

I appreciate you might have been annoyed by the extent of previous discussion, but aside from point scoring, does this extended comment really contribute to improving the article

2050:

remains the most appropriate venue for arguing for more general presumption against the Telegraph and/or reversal of the general presumption against the Morning Star or Mirror.

1630: 4904:

The bigger surprise is that nobody has added a detailed analysis of the exact mathematical measurement of the angle of declination of Corbyn's loaf during Sunday's wreathage --

2042:

removed from the Privy Council website doesn't warrant reporting here because (at this stage) it's utterly trivial, not because the Telegraph's screenshots cannot be believed.

4021:- is this sufficient to demonstrate that both he isn't quite teetotal, and that it is a topic that is discussed in non-tabloid sources, due to the character comparisons with 3817:

A couple of folks on an individual talk page cannot trump long-standing policy. As I've said, we could carry the well-sourced version of this story, or we could remove it. --

844:, and no further action is likely to be taken without consensus at this time. Point b) you have provided no reliable source therefore no action can be taken at this time. -- 1721:"I trust you believe me when I say that Corbyn has been appointed a PC & that therefore he is a Privy Councillor. I appreciate that sometimes bully-boy tactics work" 553:

in this article has been overturned. The alleged "reliable source" was also rejected. Can I ask editors to ensure consistency, to ensure that good sense prevails on the

4695:

Knowledge (XXG) prefers that we use what the person self-categorizes as . If the "Gnarph Party" honoured him as a "Great Gnarphist" that would not still make him one.

4677:

I respect all the above editors very much. But I am surprised that the Gandhi Foundation would not be an acceptable source for whether someone is a Gandhian. Regarding

110:

I didn't see it myself, but it seems Cameron made some rather strong accusations in his Conservative Party address this morning that we should probably cover here (see

3831:

I'm afraid it seems that the point has to be re-iterated, your interpretation of this policy is only your own, and not supported by consensus anywhere on wikipedia. --

4828:

seems to be sweeping across all kinds of bio articles changing long-standing post-nominals and styles, without any kind of discussion. Perhaps he could tell us why.

4459:

for his "consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and non‐violence" I think this in itself could count

130: 4408:

The former London mayor Ken Livingstone dismissed the complaint against Mr Fisher as a complete nonsense and accused Blairite MPs of trying to undermine Mr Corbyn.

4105:

I'm surprised this is proving so difficult. Surely there's someone watching this page who lives in London and can figure out where/when to show up with a camera.

1293:

to stuff this in the article against consensus of a fair bit of what is apparently well meant editing? Its a meaningless shoe-in post no one cares about anyways.

213:

But we can't afford to be partisan ourselves. We just report the facts, regardless of whether we like what Cameron said or not (and I personally didn't like it).

1496:

It seems to me there are two potential sources which would settle the matter for definite. Either a news outlet reporting that he has joined (not merely that he

2873:

logical impossibility because no title had ever been awarded. To imply that it had been, as the Telegraph are trying to do, is clearly entirely misleading. --

3587:

My view is that the material isn't dubious, therefore it's not necessary to be so rigid about "high-quality sources". This view is entirely consistent with

1627:

Agree, but here's a less partisan article. It seems he cannot become a member of the Privy Council until he attends a meeting of that body and is inducted.

4009:

would meet the earlier leader’s strong approval, and he would certainly recognise his successor’s victimisation by the media, in particular the Daily Mail.

1607:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11925338/Queens-advisers-strip-Jeremy-Corbyn-of-Right-Honourable-title-after-Privy-Council-snub.html

826:

PS. surely Wiki readers would like to be disabused of the notion, that a) Corbyn is not yet a PC; and, b) that he will have to kneel before The Queen? M

1527: 519:

I'm not involved with the "hard left" page and don't wish to be. But the discussion here clearly shows a lack of consensus for adding that material.

431:

article asserting that Corbyn is part of the hard left; anyone willing to test the water and edit this page to say that Corbyn is on the hard left? (

1500:

join), or the Privy Council Office website showing that he is a member. Until then, there is just too much ambiguity to know one way or the other.

1057:

and let's work together to ensure that no buffoons introduce patently incorrect info into this article. Many thanks for your co-operation. Best M

1219:. No doubt you appreciate that someone who gets themselves into a hole as has Corbyn wouldn't necessarily update their own parliamentary website 199:

Camerons comments were a clear personal attack, a biased and partisan one at that, such as Britain hating accusations deserve no repeating here.

1631:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-right-honourable-title-removed-after-missing-meeting-with-the-queen-a6690351.html

4018: 2923:

It may have been a lie. But we have no evidence of what was said. So your accusation, especially against the newspaper, is simply unfounded.

2328:

In which section was your question? If it was a previous section, then I would suggest discussing it in multiple sections doesn't add much --

1115:? If the former, I should be utterly astonished. Anyway do let me know why this is such a big issue when the facts are plain for all to see. 998: 2601: 2562: 2533: 5073: 2600:

have had their wrists slapped no doubt that will be the end of the matter. It's difficult to see where this would fit in anyway. As for

2466: 1523: 2459:

how jews (Corbyn and Eisen) are being denounced as "anti-semits" or even worse hereover. Is this Monthy Pythons flying cirucs here?

908:

In the absence of the usual prompt retort, I presume "point noted"? Let's move on (& please correct accordingly) - many thanks M

5062:

Welcome to Great Britain in 2015, a land where people kneel before and kiss the hand of the Queen. A modern land where us Brits are

4425: 2518: 2354:

has been discussed in at least four of the threads above, so it's not totally clear that everything about it has been "resolved".

1286: 964: 4456: 1829:

Agree about the tone of the previous debate. It all seemed a little bit "I'm right, so get used to it", rather than considering

1081:

plays mischief with formal announcements (& by extension, somehow, Wiki's authority is greater than Her Majesty's Government

4219: 3272: 5145: 2702:. But are you saying the words added to the article were biased? Of that they can't be used as the whole article was biased? 1403: 1325: 4782: