Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

Post-nominals

Why is there no MP post-nominals? Also, the matter of Mr Corbyn's appointment to the to the Privy Council was discussed in much detail one year and a month ago as shown in the archives. As a year has passed and the Parliament.gov website ([1]) as well as the Prime Minister ([2] @ 2:45)in the recent PMQ's referring to him as being the "Right Honourable" why is it that his name lacks the post nominals of PC - which are used to denote member ship of the Privy Council? I would add them in myself, but I feel it more fitting to start here as shown in the last debate on the matter, it got very heated. Uamaol (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are MP post-nominals in the infobox. And, "Modern custom as recommended by Debrett's is to use the post-nominal letters "PC" in a social style of address for peers who are Privy Counsellors. For commoners, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of their status as a Privy Counsellor." As Corbyn is still an MP and Privy Councillor, the latter custom applies. The same with the PM (only the MP post nominal present, too). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If such is the case, then why do many politicians of the past and present who are commoners, have PC after their names on the Wiki? Mike Penning, Mark Field and Chris Grayling as well as the deceased Alan Clark, none of whom are peers, but are/were Privy Councillors and MP's. Also, as a result of this style preference, why do none of these people, include Mr Corbyn and Mrs May, have RtHn prefixes? Uamaol (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Commoners shouldn't have PC after their names. Only lords use PC because they use The Rt Hon anyway and there needs to be something to show they are also privy counsellors. Its the same with Knight Bachelor: the post nominals Kt are only used if they have a more senior knighthood or title, eg Baron or KBE. Prefixes such as The Right Honourable, The Right Reverend, His Excellence etc, are only used in the infobox and not in opening paragraph (I assume this is what you are asking "none of these people ... have RtHn prefixes". I hope that helps. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding his support of terrorism

While Donald Trump is being described as "populist" and "nationalist". Nothing being said about Corbyn who supports terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is done in another article is irrelevant to what is written here. Wikipedia articles are not here to inject fringe innuendo against people with whom you happen to disagree. Write a letter to the editor, or post your comments on twitter. TFD (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He supported terrorist groups (recognized as terrorist groups in the US and i'm pretty sure in the EU too). It should be written in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You can mention it in the draft at Draft:Jeremy Corbyn. However I think the EU no longer recognise them as terrorist groups but political parties who have had to resort to militant means. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You would have to show that this is something given wide coverage in mainstream media, not just the blogs you rely on for news, which is required by policy. TFD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn's association with Hamas and Hezbollah are already covered in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The very fact this (from an Israeli ISP, as it happens to be) IP is not well-versed in the longstanding distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas / Hezbollah (see EU General Court removal case and Hezbollah article lede lends strong credence that this user is here to make a WP:POINT. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt that they are here to show a point but we must be neutral and include what the reliable sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and no reliable and neutral source says he "supports terrorism". As noted, the Hamas and Hezbollah "friends" issue is on the page, but with what occurred being described factually rather by polemical commentary. Also wouldn't that draft page/section be better in userspace, or proposed for inclusion via this talk page, if it's going to exist at all? N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

well, the first comment was irrelevant. My ip is not the issue. According to English Wikipedia, Hamas is recognized as terror organization in the EU and the US. Hezbollah is recognized as terror organization in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups). So it should be mentioned at the beginning. (unlike Trump, who i'm sure is not recognized as "populist" and "nationalist" in the US or the EU by the official authorities. but he is descrived as such in the very beginning). So I am looking forward for the change.

We put in what is seen as important in reliable sources not what you think is important. We don't mention for example call Trump a supporter terrorism because he supported Gerry Adams, whom the British labelled a terrorist. Furthermore, WP:LABEL prevents us from polemical use of the term. TFD (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yoy have a weird logic. you can't compare a single person to few terror organizations. Besides, Trump is not recognized as "populist and nationalist" by the official authoroties of the USA or the EU. There is a double standerd and note of Corbyn's support of terror organizations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a edit to request or not? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Champion, Buzzfeed, Castro and Corbyn

Normally if something you add is contested, you need to justify it not just revert it back in with a misleading edit summary (clue: read the quote you excerpted and included, and tell us all with a straight face that it's about Corbyn again). As my edit summary said, a non-notable Buzzfeed writer's comments saying how terrible Castro was are simply not relevant or due for Corbyn's page, just because Corbyn commented on Castro's death, and it's hard to believe anyone would seriously think they were. More generally, stuffing pages full of random criticism from op-eds or pithy journalistic asides is a really bad way to build an biographical article, which is meant to tell us something about that person, not what barely known website contributors happen to think. Every politician gets slagged off by columnists or journalists who dislike them. So what? Could you please justify the inclusion here? This is an encyclopedia article, not a summary of cherry-picked media commentary. Third opinions would help too. N-HH talk/edits 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Without even commenting past your ludicrous first sentence, do you really expect me to take seriously the claim that Champion's comments were not "about" Corbyn? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)