Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

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? This does not bode well for rational discussion. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has been scrubbed all along of anything negative about Corbyn. Actually Castro had rather large "flaws" which Corbyn skated over. What "columnists happen to think" (N-HH above) can be telling about the subject of an article. Of course, as a look at the edit history will reveal, a higher profile journalist will also be dismissed if s/he dares to find fault with the incumbent Labour leader. Philip Cross (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ludicrous? Er, it's simply an expression of the principle outlined at WP:BRD. As for whether the comments are about Corbyn or Castro, here is part of the lengthy quote you put on the page and which I referred to: "the establishment of a one-party state, the execution of hundreds of supporters of the regime he toppled, the imprisonment of political enemies, a ban on independent media, and the sending of gay people—among other so-called 'ideological enemies'—to forced labour camps". Sorry, is Champion saying Corbyn did these things or Castro? As for Philip Cross's post, we've been over this debate multiple times. It's not about sanitising people I support – you're making the elementary mistake of assuming people are as ideologically guided as you are when you add acres of criticism to pages, albeit in reverse. As explained, that's not the point. N-HH talk/edits 17:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's ludicrous because you insist on a claim that is so very obviously false. The rest of the paragraph was a typical "I don't think criticism should appear on Wikipedia" speech that I would expect from an IP.

I don't think there is anything more to say. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could answer the original questions. But since you'd rather engage in distraction, wilful misreading of my points and total non-sequitur and denial of the obvious, there is indeed nothing more to say. Other than that, no, I don't think pages should be full of off-topic, empty criticism from non-notable commentators which doesn't illuminate much about the topic at hand. Nor, funnily enough, nor do I think it should be full of equally vacuous and random praise. And I try to apply that principle whether the subject is something or someone I personally like, dislike or am indifferent to. If anyone else has a view on the precise issue at hand, as noted, that would be helpful. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry which question did you want an answer to? I already answered Yes of course the criticism is about Corbyn. That question was freakishly obtuse, by the way.

Could you try restating your argument without all the invective and angry personal attacks? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Why a non-notable Buzzfeed writer's comments on Corbyn are worth including, especially when most of the content is about Castro, not Corbyn. I understand that he is criticising Corbyn and never said he wasn't, despite your suggesting I was – the point, as noted, is that you lifted a huge quote from the piece about Castro. As for invective, I think you should read your own comments. "Ludicrous", "lol" etc etc. Glass houses and that. N-HH talk/edits 18:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to include the comments if they came from a more notable writer in a mainstream newspaper. I remember there was quite a lot of criticism of Corbyn over this, can we find a better source? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a piece in the FT, "Jeremy Corbyn's praise of Castro confirms he's in a time warp", which may be worth quoting. It's pointless me linking to it from here though because clicking on it will just hit their paywall. As for BuzzFeed I'd steer clear of it. Not really mainstream and the commentator isn't well known. I'd use a shorter quote as well. We don't really need to know all that stuff about Castro in this article. The sentence is a critique of Corbyn's view of Castro, rather than of Castro himself. This is Paul (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also e.g. Telegraph news article, Telegraph opinion article. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the material only to be reverted by Emir of Wikipedia despite seeing no obvious consensus to include this disputed material. AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, seems like Traingate all over again. This is Paul (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted by Ceoil, but it looks like they meant to restore the material and self reverted. The content should be kept in at the moment, but I am open to using a more "reputable" source than Buzzfeed if it is provided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, thats exactly what happened. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this context is germane and support inclusion, but would prefer if we avoid BuzzFeed, per above. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on which source(s)? FWIW, I only went with Buzzfeed out of laziness, and because it had a quote that conveniently provided a reference to Corbyn's quote about "flaws" which was already in the previous sentence of the Wiki article. And this enabled me to write generic prose saying little about it in the Wiki voice (i.e. questioning his [Corbyn's] description). Just easier to quote than paraphrase. The burning question is, what about the Twitter meme?? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed piece needs to go and I still can't believe people are actually putting it back in and defending it. Even the person who first put it there says they used it out of "laziness". Then, again, there's the wider point of stuffing articles with passing, trivial and/or inevitably partial media commentary (whether negative or positive) and in effect trying to conduct political debates about Castro and Corbyn's view of him on the pages of what should simply be an encyclopedic biography. There's no need for a page full of every scathing response by Barry Shitpeas to everything Corbyn has said telling how stupid and wrong he thinks Corbyn is. The one thing that would arguably make sense is a news report in a serious outlet looking back and noting that Corbyn was criticised for his comments (since he was; just as some people actually defended him) – not commentary doing the criticising. But even then it still needs only a brief mention. This is not the biggest event in Corbyn's political history. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Barry Shitpeas" is not an expression I'm familiar with. Explain more? Factchecker_atyourservice 13:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's always possible to find negative comments about major politicians. Whether or not they are included depends on the attention they receive. For example, Trump's allegations of wiretapping have attracted actual news stories, not just postings on BuzzFeed. We are therefore able to assess the weight of opinion on whether or not he was prudent in his comments and present them in a neutral manner. Corbyn's statement incidentally was pretty standard for major political figures in the world. It was more guarded than many world leaders', but not as terse as Boris Johnson. Read for example Justin Trudeau's remarks here, which was far more praising than Corbyn. And Trudeau is a liberal! TFD (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Both Corbyn and Trudeau received wide criticism for their silly remarks. You needn't focus on Buzzfeed. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In order to maintain neutrality, editors need to guard against confirmation bias. There are negative articles about all major political figures every day, but they only become significant if they receive attention. Consider for example the Trump Access Hollywood scandal. An article in The Hill describes what Trump said and says, "The recording was seen as the low point for the Trump campaign, coming just two days before the second presidential debate in St. Louis, dominating headlines before the event, which drew nearly 70 million viewers. Trump dismissed the 11-year-old tape as "locker room talk.""[1] So we have a news article explaining what happened, what the reaction was and Trump's defense. That allows use to enter the story into his article in a neutral manner. We don't say, "A columnist you never heard of in a publication you never read criticized Trump for his comments that...." TFD (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested text or preference on which sources to use? This article is not about Trump. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable secondary source, i.e., a news item that reports on the controversy rather than cherry-picked opinion pieces. (I used Trump as an example.) However, I see no reason to include this, since it fails weight. TFD (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean like some of the ones already posted. Nope, it doesn't "fail weight". Why don't you go read your own comment about "confirmation bias". Factchecker_atyourservice 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a "I know you are but what am I" argument. "Due and undue weight" says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If a controversy is significant, then you would be able to identify reliable secondary sources that discuss it, just as I did with the Trump Access Hollywood story. However you have failed to do that. You do not seem to understand the difference between a news article and an opinion piece, and I suggest you read the relevant policies. TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the Telegraph news article I posted in this same talk section an RS news article? Doesn't the fact I posted a "Telegraph news article" and a "Telegraph opinion article" side by side show that I do understand the difference between news articles and opinion articles? And why is it necessary for your comments to focus so closely on me, User:The Four Deuces?

More generally, it is commonplace and appropriate for commentary from opinion articles to be used on WP. I don't understand your objection. There was wide criticism so there's no weight issue either. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the eulogy and the explanatory context, provided in multiple sources, go hand in hand. Either both stay or both go. To provide the former without the latter is to have your cake and eat it, and utter POV. I find the counter arguments weak and unconvincing. The filer of this thread has been near hysterical. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We were discussing this edit, where you added criticism of Corbyn's remarke in an editorial to coverage of his remarks in a news report. The news report, unlike my example with Entertainment Hollywood, does not say the comments were controversial or explain why they were, what the weight of opinion in the controversy is or ask Corbyn for his response. Hence it does not establish that any significant controversy exists and therefore provides no reason for inclusion. The fact that an event was reported in the news does not mean that opinions about the news become important. And I agree with Cecil that including the news item, without context, makes no sense. The source after all was not about Corbyn, but about Castro. TFD (talk) 21

39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion lets us know of both Corbyn's nativity and personal wrecklessness, and as a public figure he should be accountable for the statements he makes. Leaving the statement unchallenged, and arguing against the inclusion of historical context, to the point of edit warring, is a complicit act. I have real problem with that approach; morally its reprehensible. Having thought about it in last few hours, I am in favour inclusion of both. (ps am Irish, so don't have skin in the game, except that our president Michael D. had the same problem, deservedly, imo, although I voted for his election). Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't someone mention confirmation bias above? I understand some people don't like Corbyn, or Castro, but none of this is interesting outside of forum debates. Even those who do dislike both of them, and who genuinely believes WP pages need to stack up negative commentary, seriously need to take a step back if they're going to expend this much energy defending, albeit with no explicit justification other than "ILIKEIT", this particular piece of content: to repeat, a huge quote about Castro's iniquities, made as an aside to attack Corbyn by a random, non-notable writer from Buzzfeed of all places. Seriously? It's embarrassing. The solution for those who are really so excited by this issue has been pointed out by me and TFD: find a serious, heavyweight piece of news reporting that describes the controversy – if there is one above and beyond a day or two of journalistic overexcitability – as a whole with some detachment. Btw, Barry Shitpeas is a commentator of supreme ignorance who randomly pontificates about everything under the sun on Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe. N-HH talk/edits 08:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah so in other words, just another personal attack. Could you be civil, drop the profanity and stop suggesting that people you disagree with are evil 'pedia molesters? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Er, if you could recall correctly, I mentioned the character in a jokey reference to real-world columnists, not seriously or at you or any other WP person. Given that, and given that my detailed comment above includes a suggestion for finding better content, my post can hardly be construed as or reduced to "just another personal attack". That said, I stand by the criticisms about how absurd this whole exercise has been though (and sadly typical of much WP activity) and would add this exchange as another example of how difficult it has been to communicate sensibly with you. If you want to count all that as a personal attack, feel free. N-HH talk/edits 08:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember everything quite correctly. By insisting (quite ridiculously) that those criticizing Corbyn are like "Barry Shitpeas", you're attacking both the sources and the editors pointing to them. Your other comments about the alleged ill motives of other editors, and your misstatements of what has actually transpired in this thread, do nothing to suggest otherwise.

It seems you are having trouble keeping a level head. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Spectator has a better article here which criticises Corbyn for not mentioning "the independent newspapers closed as part of his regime — or the homosexuals and priests sent to labour camps for ‘re-education’." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, the Spectator per se is a more serious publication, but that's the Steerpike diary/gossip column. And again there's the broader point that of course you can find commentary criticising Castro and Corbyn for his comments about Castro. Some writers, especially on the right but also the liberal left, don't like either of them? No shit. Including it may make people who insist the page must tell us how awful, naive or whatever Corbyn is happy but who says it has to do that just because that's what those people believe? As noted, where is a piece that looks across this issue and declares it, soberly rather than as a piece of journalese unsuitable for an encyclopedia, a significant controversy? All I can find in Google searches is a couple of pithy attacks from more or less the same day. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The article on Corbyn comprises 140 kilobytes and features very considerable amounts of trite material about various minor accomplishments; yet his Castro remarks were one of the few things that have garnered him attention outside Britain, or for anything other than being a staunchly hard-left British politician. Perhaps the skewed perspective you detect is your own? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think "minor accomplishments" should be kept, as WP:NOTCENSORED. However I also believe that the comments about Castro should kept for the same reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I am not suggesting removing anything.. just saying, we're not running out of electrons so I don't see "article is too long!" as a reason not to add content. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The number of discussion comments a minor issue with this article seems to provoke never ceases to amaze me and it's probably a large part of the reason the article really isn't that good... Really don't see the need for any additional commentary here: Corbyn gave a generic tribute to a dead foreign politician he had no real relationship with which was similar in tone and content to those given by people considerably closer to the political centre and less sympathetic to far left pariah states than he is. It's probably not amongst his top hundred most outspoken or awkward comments on the subject of individual foreign leaders, never mind the sort of thing where a contrasting view is going to add information directly relevant to [opinions of] Corbyn, his policies or his relationships with others. Castro's flaws are not the subject of the article, and I think we can lose Corbyn's rather predictable list of Castro's supposed achievements in the interest of balance and brevity as well. Whilst Buzzfeed's political journalism can be surprisingly good sometimes, I also tend to agree that like tabloids it's probably not an appropriate source for a BLP Dtellett (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rwendland: If you wish to discuss then please discuss here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems plenty of discussion here already! I think a source that describes itself as a "social news and entertainment company" isn't really a source of commentary worthy of going in an encyclopedia. Basically similar to a tabloid source IMO. I generally go along with the comments by Dtellett above. Rwendland (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should just note Corbyn supports CSC, give his quote regarding Castro as it was considered notable and drew a notable amount of coverage and ruffled feathers in the PLP, and exclude any further editorialising. The opinion of a Buzzfeed journalist is not encyclopedic. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pink News also discussed his comments here Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pink News did not discuss his comments, it published an opinion piece by someone who mentioned them. Let me quote your wise comments (about another Labour leader) from 2016: "without a secondary source then this debate doesn't seem notable enough to be included in what is already a fairly long article." There are in fact 75 countries that maintain laws against homosexuality and we don't have criticism for everyone who has ever said anything positive about the leaders of those countries. There is nothing in the Tony Blair article about him supporting leaders of Muslim countries that criminalie homosexuality or visiting Barbados frequently despite its laws. TFD (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a world leader, is that really the characterization you want to hang your hat on? Dictator of Cuba for half a century, who urged the Soviets to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States with missiles based in Cuba, the guy that has a 170kb article and six sub-articles including one just for his funeral that clocks in at over 150k including the longest section of political reaction quotes I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article? Comments on his death not of enduring significance? Oh come now, @The Four Deuces: surely you jest? As noted this was widely remarked upon in RS and many noted criticism or pushback or at least distinguished his remarks from more measured ones by others. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not say he was just another leader. If your flawed synthesis connecting Corbyn and pre-nuclear strikes had any weight, then it would have been reported in a news article or other reliable source. TFD (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what you were suggesting—that there's nothing special or significant about these remarks, "we don't need to mention every time etc etc". But that's fanciful for the reasons stated. Castro was a big deal, his death was a big deal, a few leftist leaders in the West caught major flak for singing his praises, Corbyn was one, article should touch upon the published criticism. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, what part of my comment do you think was an effort to connect Corbyn to pre-emptive nuclear strikes? This is bizarrely combative and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think Castro's alleged advocacy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes has any connection to Corbyn's statements about Castro then there is no reason for you to mention it in the first place. And resist the temptation to determine what I am suggesting. You have a conceptual framework that force interpretations on events and comments that are not necessarily there. TFD (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again your comment is utterly and obviously wrong. You suggested Castro's death was not an important political event. I was explaining why it was. You can say that this is not what you meant but it's obvious. You pointed out, e.g., that there were "75 countries" with laws against homosexuality and thus we shouldn't feel the need to mention one of them—i.e. Castro. My very next comment illustrated that this was a bizarre way of looking at things because of Fidel Castro's outsized role in 20th century geopolitics. The comments are not being mentioned because of special significance of Castro's oppression of gays. Tony Blair's vacations to Barbados are very extremely irrelevant. They are also not being mentioned because of some connection between Corbyn and the demand to make a nuclear strike on the US. They are being mentioned because Castro was a very big deal in the world.

Please don't make outlandish accusations like your SYNTH accusation when it's painfully obvious no SYNTH was being attempted. And if you insist that I've somehow mischaracterized your comments about 75 anti-gay countries and Tony Blair's vacations to Barbados, kindly explain what you were saying that could have had some passing relevance to this discussion. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we put this debate out of its misery? The amount of effort spent edit-warring this one sentence in and arguing here how apposite and germane it is without anyone ever offering any real justification for including it beyond "I agree with what this random person says about this trivial point" – against plenty of serious, policy- and logic-based observations about why it's a bad idea and against enough objections to make pretty clear there will never be consensus to include it – really doesn't reflect very well on anyone, especially, although perhaps I would say this, on those who have tried to railroad it in repeatedly. As noted, this page really does get bogged down in minutiae that really should be simple to resolve and move on from. N-HH talk/edits 08:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all the objections have been to using Buzzfeed. Nobody has objected to tracking what RS commentary has said, and I can't imagine why anybody would object. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Reiterate my opposition to the inclusion of this irrelevant poorly sourced crap. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you object to using one of the many RS then? I've asked this question days ago but you folks keep talking about Buzzfeed. It looks like the revert warring has died down, now could we talk about some better sourcing? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the closest we're ever likely to get to a consensus position is that there's no need for additional commentary on the Castro regime in an article about Jeremy Corbyn.Dtellett (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that we should simply use RS commentary about Corbyn's remarks and ensuing criticism, instead of Buzzfeed, and given the relevant policy commands I don't see why it would be otherwise:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

Factchecker_atyourservice 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That's criticism and praise of the article subject and significant events related to the subject, not commentary on bad things Castro did in an article about Jeremy Corbyn. I could literally churn out novels worth of sourced criticisms of Corbyn that have more place in this article than whether someone thinks his comments on Castro were insufficiently negative. The relevant policy on whether Castro's flaws should be expanded upon in an article about a UK politician which mentions Castro in passing (in both senses of "passing") is If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article. WP:REL Dtellett (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Erm. Let's read what the sources say. Corbyn was not criticized because Castro was an oppressive dictator, Corbyn was criticized for praising an oppressive dictator. Do you understand that that's a criticism of Corbyn and not Castro, and do you also understand that political criticism of a politician is relevant to the article subject? I suggest you go take a look at a dictionary of the English language if you think otherwise, and also re-read the relevant policy language that I posted from the BLP policy on "balance" which makes clear that well-sourced criticism should be reflected. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, you have not provided any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Incidentally, your statement that "[Corbyn's] comments are not being mentioned because of special significance of Castro's oppression of gays" is wrong. The op-ed you provided and presumably read, which was written by an LGBT rights activist and published in an LGBT magazine, PinkNews, says, "Castro’s regime in Cuba was vicious towards gay people." In fact the whole point of the op-ed was to trash Corbyn's record on LGBT rights, beginning with his support for the knighthood of an MP who had voted against LGBT rights. The article says, "In many respects, Corbyn made his name off the back of the besieged LGBT community." Ironically, an actual news story in PinkNews says, "[he] has been a long-standing supporter of LGBT rights."[2] I notice there is nothing in the article about Corbyn's record on LGBT rights and since this appears to be of interest to you, perhaps you could add something. TFD (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Simply false, I posted RS a while ago, as did others, and I repeatedly pleaded to you to talk about those sources and stop ranting about Buzzfeed. You've gone from deliberately ignoring those sources to actively pretending I didn't post them. Your other comments merit no serious response. Castro oppressed many different kinds of people; gays were just another class of victims. The only reason Pink News focused on the anti-gay aspects is because it's a magazine about the LGBT community. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources provided by you describing the "controversy," could you please provide one now. Incidentally, I was not "ranting" about Buzzfeed," I was discussing PinkNews, which you presented as a source. TFD (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

just keep looking through this talk section til you find them, hyperlinks are outlined in blue, of course there are others Factchecker_atyourservice 15:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a statement that you have no reliable secondary sources. Your last hyperlink was to an opinion piece in PinkNews. Not a reliable secondary source. Nor was the opinion piece in BuzzFeed you keep bringing up. TFD (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You should take it for what it is: a request that you discuss the RS's I posted a week ago Factchecker_atyourservice 15:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thus far the sources provided are a couple of Telegraph opinion pieces attacking multiple figures on the left, and Pink News and Buzzfeed. Consider the reams of reliably sourced material written about other comments Corbyn has made, far more significant issues like his general competence, his turbulent relationship with his own party, his lack of public appeal, specific mistakes he's made, and endorsements of individuals and causes far more controversial than Castro in the context of UK politics - including many criticisms originating from highly notable figures within his own party - the comparative lack of attention notable commentators have devoted to Corbyn's Castro comments is an indication it's really not all that significant in the course of his career to be worth introducing a criticism here, particularly not one that amounts to itemising the flaws Corbyn acknowledged. Other sources, by contrast, list his Castro comments along with similar comments made by other political figures and even "more critical" [3] [4] than some of the left. The wider context is that Castro is a figure of relatively little significance in UK politics that Corbyn probably never met and whose funeral he declined to attend (cf Corbyn's comments on the likes of Martin McGuinness, at IRA funerals and his much, much, much more publicised quote about "tragedy upon tragedy" after Osama Bin Laden was killed - none of which have been given any attention at all in this article). Anyone who thinks that Corbyn's caveated praise of Castro is one of the things he has done which has invited the most significant and relevant criticism probably doesn't have sufficient grasp of UK politics for it to be worth persisting in arguing against consensus that it's undue weight in one of the most hotly-contested articles on Wikipedia. There are about 99 Corbyn problems that arguably haven't been given enough weight in the article but this ain't one Dtellett (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, a textwall. Let's look at the quality of your bricks.

• The "comparative lack of mention" you describe is imaginary. There were "reams" of RS news and opinion articles on Corbyn's remarks. Some examples were posted. It's not necessary to list every RS that has discussed it, because we wouldn't cite them all anyway.
• We're debating inclusion, not Buzzfeed quotes. Please don't argue we must exclude because we can't include a long list of Castro's flaws because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
• The fact that Corbyn has been criticized on other subjects YZ is not an argument for failing to mention substantial published criticism on subject X
• The fact that Corbyn's remarks on Bin Laden aren't even mentioned here is a separate POV problem that should be rectified, not compounded. The amount of attention a view has received from the WP editors editing this article has no bearing on anything at all.
• This article is not limited to local UK politics just because Corbyn is a UK politician. Recall that WP aims to provide a global perspective, not a provincial one. When a politician attracts global criticism, that is quite obviously important to his BLP. Thus the bulk of your complaint (consisting of remarks about the Castro's significance to UK politics) is quite irrelevant. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Because The Times article I have just cited is behind a paywall, which no one is going to reject as RS, I will add a more extensive quote. The main section with attributed comments is as follows:

"Mr Corbyn’s critics within the party were quick to make their disgust known. John Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw, called Castro a 'brutal dictator whose trademarks were homophobia and the oppression of free speech and democracy. We are traditionally the party that supports democracy and elections,' he said. 'That was never a problem Fidel Castro had to deal with. His form of democracy was to torture his opponents'.

Wes Streeting, another Labour rebel, criticised the 'nauseating tributes'.

John Woodcock, one of Mr Corbyn’s most outspoken critics, tweeted: “Good grief JC.”

Responding to the Labour leader’s comments that Castro 'saw off' a number of US presidents, Mr Woodcock pointed out that democracy meant American leaders could be voted out of office, whereas he was a 'dictator who locked up or killed his opponents'.

Other Labour politicians are quoted anonymously in the article, and Castro is even defended by Jess Phillips and (partly) by Emily Thornberry. Philip Cross (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and funnily enough you haven't added those defences have you (not that I am suggesting any of this is needed)? This is one up from Buzzfeed, and as acknowledged way back some straight report about the controversy, such as it was, may be OK (and at least you're trying to address that point) but the same broader problem still applies: this is not the place to have a debate about whether Castro was a dictator or not and whether some people, often predictably given who they are, slagged Corbyn off for his comments about Castro. This is meant to be the serious biography of a politician, not a (selected) record of every time one of his political opponents or a hostile journalist dived in to slag him off (or a supporter spoke up to defend or praise him for that matter) or a summary of every media-confected outrage, which everyone involved forgot about the following day. N-HH talk/edits 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alas, there is nothing suitable for an article about Corbyn in the positive comments about Castro, which is why I did not include them above. For the record N-HH, and just for you:

Some Labour MPs took a more balanced approach to discussing Castro’s death. Jess Phillips said she was 'raised to believe he was a hero' and called him a 'folklore figure'. 'If nothing else, he is a historic icon,' she said.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, said that it was 'difficult to get beyond the human rights abuses' perpetrated under Castro’s regime, but insisted that his government had been 'brave'.

Castro was also defended by Ken Livingtone:

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London who was suspended from Labour in April for his comments on Hitler and Zionism, called him a 'giant of the 20th century' and a 'beacon of light'.

Despite your comments above, you are free to change your mind. Philip Cross (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to hear anything resembling an argument against my point that having predictably nice things to say about a foreign politician he never met on the day he died is 'hilariously insignificant relatively to the many other actions and comments Corbyn has made, and therefore doesn't warrant a paragraph of commentary in a biography (particularly a biography where all the commentary on his policy stances and most of the commentary on his relationship with the party has been hived off into other articles for reasons of brevity, as has lots of commentary on stuff which actually had consequences for his political career). Generic funeral tributes with muted and predictable responses mostly on Twitter don't inherit notability because Castro is globally famous and some foreign news might have mention Corbyn's comments in their own coverage of Castro's death; similarly I have no intention of finding random foreign politicians I know little about, inserting paragraphs of commentary on something they said about the deaths of Reagan or Thatcher or Abdullah El Saud then accusing people of the subject matter of being "provincial" because they disagree that it's amongst that individual's most important and controversial actions of the past 30 years. It's bad enough we have two sentences from Corbyn on the subject, never mind commentary from people that always criticise Corbyn but usually have more substantial criticisms than "Good grief". Dtellett (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is wholly insignificant.ℕ ℱ

@Dtellett: it's not really a "point" because it's a gross mischaracterization not inviting response. The things he said were not "predictably nice", which is why he was criticized, and calling Fidel Castro "a foreign politician he never met" is like calling Donald Trump "some American businessman who later went into politics". This rhetorical technique does you zero credit as a straightforward, collaborative editor.

Your remaining comments are similar straw men, to wit: (1) nobody's insisting on "a paragraph of commentary"; (2) the tribute wasn't "generic" nor the responses "muted" nor "mostly on Twitter", although of course Twitter comments always outnumber RS-published comments because that is how Twitter works; (3) the comments get their notability from wide RS attention, which they received because they were a (notedly) ludicrous response to Castro's passing, which was in fact a very major geopolitical development; (4) there is no reason to care about what you plan or desire to do at other WP articles; (5) I didn't accuse any person of being "provincial" but that is in fact quite a reasonable adjective for describing the (incorrect) view that an article about Jeremy Corbyn must ignore wide criticism he received for outlandish remarks about a major political event, simply because that event is not closely or directly related to UK politics; (6) a criticism need not relate to one of the subject's most controversial actions of the past 30 years to be mentioned in his WP article, as is clear by 10 seconds of inspecting the actual content of this or any other article about a politician, and as stated that wasn't the reason for using the word "provincial"; and (7) "good grief" was in fact the briefest" response to Corbyn's remarks so yes in fact the sourcing already shown does evidence more substantial criticisms.

These complaints are baseless. Obviously fit for mention in the article because we're talking about widely published criticisms by numerous figures on the article subject's widely published remarks about a seminal event in world politics (and as Labour party leader Corbyn is no local politician by any stretch). Factchecker_atyourservice 01:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, if you have so little knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn that you don't think that him having some nice things to say about Fidel Castro the day after he dies is predictable, you should probably recuse yourself from editing his biography altogether, and certainly refrain from mounting a campaign to have it edited to your satisfaction despite multiple editors more familiar with the subject explaining why you are wrong.

(1) No commentary at all is necessary; but if we must include commentary NPOV policy requires balance from less hostile sources, hence a paragraph would be required to include the WP:RS commentary you have ignored that put the precise opposite spin on his remarks to the angle you insist on including; implying that he was more critical than others on the left. That's disproportionate commentary on whether a statement which had no significant consequences whatsoever for Corbyn about a person whose funeral he declined to attend was appropriately caveated or not. (2) The tribute was extremely generic, as evidenced by the fact that every article referencing his tribute included similar ones including from other parts of the political spectrum, and it was vague enough for some sources to bracket it amongst the more critical tributes from the left. The fact the journalists sourced the response quotes from Twitter rather than the interviews the likes of John Mann and Wes Streeting give on a regular basis to express more significant grievances with Corbyn is a pretty strong indication of how unimportant it was (3) Comments do not inherit their notability from worldwide attention paid to Castro's death, and there is wide WP:RS attention to literally everything Corbyn says in the following day's newspapers which is why the policy WP:NOTNEWS exists and strongly implies focusing on things which are of enduring significance to the article subject. (5) It is simply absurd to describe the view that it's "provincial" to weight commentary on a politician's words based on their significance in the sphere in which they operate and their own political relationships, not based on the opinion of people unfamiliar with that context that they must have been particularly important because they mentioned Fidel Castro (6) As is evidenced by the biography of this and every other prominent politician and Wikipedia's formal policies on the subject, criticism of a politician's comments is generally not included simply because sources report that people [who usually disagree with that politician] disagree with the comments, which is a daily occurrence for any major political figure. Instead they are included if the criticism is representative of an issue which is of enduring significance to that individual, and/or offers an interesting perspective on why that individual might have made those comments (7) All the more substantial criticism pertain to the fact that Castro, not Corbyn, did bad things; none introduced any new critical angle, or implied anything about Corbyn's political future/ relationships etc. Which is actually quite unusual for criticism of Jeremy Corbyn. Dtellett (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dtellett: please don't attempt to personalize this dispute. That's a pointless bullying tactic, no more legitimate than your use of straw men. I'm not the only person involved in this discussion. Your misunderstanding of WP policy is more important than my lack of specialized knowledge about Jeremy Corbyn—which is not required, by the way.

Calling it a "predictable" response implies it would be predictable for an ordinary person of mainstream sensibilities. So when I said it was not a "predictable response", I was saying it was controversial, which is what RS have said, and not that it was out of character for Jeremy Corbyn. We don't ignore wide RS-reported and RS-published criticism even if Corbyn's personality makes him prone to the controversial statements that provoke the criticism, and even if the controversial comments were well received by Corbyn's closest supporters. Moving along:

(1) I'm the one who has presented RS's well over a week ago and you only begrudgingly acknowledged them yesterday. I've pleaded for days for people to stop talking about Buzzfeed, and if you insist on focusing on that article you needn't waste any breath with complaints about it being "hostile". I have no problem at all presenting RS commentary fairly; what I am trying to secure from you is a commitment to the same. And this spate of criticism is of vastly greater significance than what is currently in the article—more on that below.

(2) No, the tribute wasn't generic. Its non-generic quality was what provoked controversy and criticism. RS's discuss his comments both directly, expressly describing them as controversial and referring to criticism in response, and indirectly, referring to reasons Corbyn's characterization is controversial. There's news reporting, reactions from other political leaders and the public, opinion articles which are then further discussed in subsequent news reporting, etc. Business Insider sums it up quite adequately: "Corbyn attracted criticism by appearing to praise the dictator"

(3) Yes, the significance of the comments absolutely derives from what the comments were about. Suggestions otherwise are pure nonsense. This is of enduring significance to the article subject. It's just not favorable signficance. Note the article is currently built of such enduringly significant stuff as Corbyn posturing about his only office expense being for a printer cartridge, after a row about the parliamentary budget, and we're told of the socially responsible company he rents his office space from. This is practically townhall stuff, or even campaign-brochure stuff, nowhere near the importance of Corbyn's very prominent remarks praising one of the greatest tyrants of the late 20th century.

(5) it's quite ridiculous to deny that "provinicial" is a correct way to describe the insistence on ignoring the significance of Corbyn's remarks on the world stage because of a desire to focus instead on local UK politics. Again, Corbyn is no local politician. He's a leader of UK politics; UK is a premier & founding member of Western civilization. It's a very big deal. And again, please stop trying to argue that I only think this is significant because of my lack of knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn. That's simply an effort to personalize the dispute—which dispute, again, involves others besides me. It's quite obvious from the sourcing these remarks were widely thought significant.

(6, 7) These observations range from pointless to specious. Of course praising a tyrant doesn't make Corbyn a tyrant. And, material about halls-of-parliament jockeying and managing a political organization might be expected to yield insights or fresh perspective about Corbyn's present or future prospects, but that bar is not met by what's actually in the article, such as the paragraph of 150+ words on his printer cartridge and office space, his "beard of the year" award, his own negative views about another foreign politician he's never met, Donald Trump, his remarks on parliamentary dress code, his Venezuelan solidarity activism, etc etc etc etc etc etc

The bottom line is that, whether or not this is one of the most controversial things Corbyn has ever said, it's of far greater enduring significance than the bulk of what is currently in the article. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "personalising the dispute" to point out that the debate consists of you repeatedly failing to demonstrate any knowledge of the article subject whatsoever whilst repeatedly trying to divert it to the largely irrelevant matter of how important a figure Castro is (in the context of the unrelated topics of Cuba and the Cold War). Without a workable knowledge of the subject and familiarity with the regular hostile reactions to regular ill-judged Corbyn comments - usually from the same sources - you can't be expected to be in a position to judge which ones require additional commentary, which only need a passing mention and which are too marginal to warrant inclusion, a judgement WP:NOTNEWS requires editors to make. These comments got a comparatively muted reaction, were generally discussed only in the context of other politicians' similar comments, saw other reliable sources actually emphasise that he was more critical than many on the left and the issue is now dead and buried as Castro. And no, this isn't about Buzzfeed, please stop trying to pretend it is, it's actually much more about the weight of coverage of various Corbyn verbal slips - some of which got days of dedicated followup and have been repeatedly raised since - in sources like the one WP:RS you cited, a newspaper I read on a daily basis and suspect you don't.

And yes, Corbyn's widely reported expenses were a lot more significant to Corbyn's public image that got him enough fans to end up in charge of the Labour Party than his usual critics' response to one of his least outspoken awkward comments (this is probably not an argument you would make if you were familiar with the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal and the fact that as a result most UK MPs have a section of their Wikipedia article dedicated to issues raised [or not] over their expenses). See also his dress sense: one of the few things he was known for in his early career and a frequently recurring criticism today. Interesting you mention his Venezuelan Solidarity Activism as being part of the bracket of things which is unimportant; it's exactly as relevant as his Cuban sympathies and presented more appropriately without bothering to add commentary informing the reader that (obviously) many people think that Venezuelan Solidarity Activism is endorsing an unpleasant dictatorship. Thank you for making my own point for me. Dtellett (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dtellett: Again, what you think I know about Corbyn is not relevant. Your other comments are specious. Let's see:

Besides that Castro's significance in world politics is an independent reason why Corbyn's praise was controversial (but don't take my word for it! consult RS) the sourcing also makes clear that Corbyn was a long-time supporter of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. You know, this guy, who appears at conferences in front of banners declaring "Hands off Cuba—end the [United States] blockade!". The claim that this is somehow not closely related enough to Corbyn to even mention, when it's in fact independently noteworthy criticism on one of his pet activism projects that makes him a darling of some Labour voters, wherein he actively postures against the policies of a major ally, is frankly silly.

The citation to NOTNEWS is spurious, as the actual text and examples makes clear, referring to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as examples of what should not be included. Publicly praising a historic dictator and then getting lambasted in the press for it is not the kind of "routine" matters that NOTNEWS tells us to avoid. Meanwhile, political criticism in WP articles is virtually always sourced to news coverage.

I didn't say his Venezuela activism is "unimportant"—I said it doesn't "yield insights or fresh perspective about Corbyn's present or future prospects"—because it has no impact on Labour-party politics in the UK. You're suggesting that's a reason to exclude, but that's a narrow-minded view and contrary to policy. Labour isn't the only party in UK, and there's an outside world too, to which his comments on Cuba are significant as evidenced by the RS coverage from many outlets, such as a Wall Street Journal article including an actual Cuban dissident, imprisoned 8 years, who said,

“Oppression, prison, misery and continuous exile was what Castroism brought us. I’m sure neither Corbyn nor Trudeau would ever want a ‘champion’ like Fidel Castro to lead their own people.”

Now, you talk about Venezuela and you've actually made my point for me right there. You've just said, we shouldn't mention the wide criticism he received about his Castro solidarity, it would be more appropriate to treat it the way the article treats his Venezuelan "solidarity". And it's funny you should say that because in fact the only thing the article does say about the subject is praise from an "alternative news" site funded by Venezuela (and Cuba!) and headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela. Yet the western press has said a lot. None of it positive. None of it using the perennial propaganda word "solidarity".

So you think it's appropriate to source propaganda directly into the WP article "without bothering to inform the reader" about actual RS commentary from the Western World such as

Express, "Venezuela: Labour's socialist utopia is a violent, poverty-stricken failed experiment"

Telegraph, "Jeremy Corbyn promises socialism, the poisonous dogma that has killed millions of innocents"

Telegraph, "The Left who lust after a Socialist paradise should look at what's happening in Venezuela "

Spectator, "Britain under Corbyn? Just look at Venezuela"

Guardian, "Let’s call Venezuela what it is under Maduro: a dictatorship; The opposition to Nicolás Maduro is vast but pessimistic, as elections are cancelled and political opponents jailed. Will Jeremy Corbyn and other supporters speak out?"

Huffington Post, "Jeremy Corbyn Is A False Prophet For The Young"

Not even a summary. Not a peep. Just Venezuelan state propaganda right in the WP article, unalloyed by commentary from the free world. This is utterly unsupported by policy, it is directly contrary to policy. I am not sure there is more for us to talk about. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We are not living in 1960s America and the international Communist conspiracy is no longer a big issue, which is why the media ignores it and goes on to other things. And no other country except Israel supports the embargo. TFD (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

pure fantasy, media doesn't ignore, and nobody said anything about an "international Communist conspiracy" Factchecker_atyourservice 00:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

So why are you talking about the "free world?" TFD (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Read. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If I can find a library that hasn't had any new books since the 50s. TFD (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Or just read the discussion you are already staring at, re: using Venezuelan propaganda instead of sources from a liberal free press, instead of responding to things you plainly haven't read. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You almost seemed to be getting it: as you said mentioning that Corbyn has some involvement in a silly little Venezuelan Solidarity group doesn't "yield insights or fresh perspective about Corbyn's present or future prospects" so we report the fact of his involvement and don't bother inserting quotes to explain that - surprise, surprise - some people think he shouldn't be involved. Even though (as you've discovered) lots and lots of journalists have written about it, just like journalists write about why they think a candidate is wrong to be a pro-life/choice activist, which we also don't include. Conversely, when Corbyn's handling of Brexit is a major factor in getting 80% of his own MPs to vote no confidence in him, some explanation about what they think he said and did wrong and how analysts perceived his handling of the situation is warranted.

Then you start ranting about how including the fact that four words referencing his involvement with an organisation called the Venezuelan Solidarity Campaign (that's like, it's actual name) is "unalloyed propaganda" which can be rectified only by introducing commentary on what a horrible place Venezuela is and what "poisonous dogma" socialism is from the "free world"....  :-/

Fair enough, Telesur isn't an ideal source even for the undisputed fact Corbyn supported a pro-Venezuelan government organization. I've swapped it for the most impartial reference to Corbyn's Venezuelan solidarity activism I can find, which happens to be in the staunchly conservative Spectator. Yes, it uses the "perennial propaganda word" - and in its significantly more critical articles too. People looking to better understand whether Venezuelan government is the sort of cause that ought to be supported are welcome to read pages about the Venezuelan government; they don't need every reference to the country on other pages to include "free world" criticism. It's also not exactly as if the wider debate on Venezuela and Cuba is so obscure nobody's likely to realise that Corbyn's fondness for them isn't universally shared

I agree, there's nothing further to talk about. Go outside, get some fresh air. The communists aren't going to take over when you don't succeed in shoehorning negative commentary about their cause into every single reference to a politician supporting it. Dtellett (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As previously discussed, your insistence that only criticism by other leftists or related to internal Labour party politics is relevant to Jeremy Corbyn's article is nonsense unsupported by policy—though I do admit you've generously allowed the Gerry Adams stink to be discussed. You're still making my argument for me: I note with interest that in order to find the correct spin that you insist the article should have, i.e. positive mention of Venzuela "solidarity" with no inconvenient criticism about that "solidarity", you had to dig down the barrel to find a book review that gives it a passing one-word mention towards the very end. Because, as I already pointed out, the actual mainstream commentary that focuses on his Venezuela activism is mostly devoted to the many negative implications regarding Corbyn's political views, e.g. that it brings the Labour party into disrepute and invites fringe elements into the fold. Same situation with Corbyn's very resolute posturing on Cuba and Castro.

Note again that among many others Corbyn has received RS-reported criticism from an actual jailed Cuban dissident; your endless angry assertions that the criticism isn't significant are simply belied by the sourcing.

Again, I urge you to avoid irrelevant, badly mistaken accusations about the views and intentions of the other guy in a content dispute. And by the way—as someone who has lived and attended school in Britain, I have more reason to take interest in this than you may think. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no "right" or "wrong" about whether to include Corbyn's comments on Cuba or not. Many people think it's just boilerplate, others feel otherwise. Here's a solution: open an RfC with the text you want to include and let people comment on it. Otherwise, it will go nowhere. I'll even open the RfC for you if you wish. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course there's a "right" and "wrong". Widely published criticism from top RS's goes into WP articles. Fin. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't care whether you were educated in the UK or the North Pole; you clearly don't understand why his associations with Gerry Adams are of considerably greater significance to his political career and reputation than a throwaway eulogy for Castro that was slightly less fawning than his Shadow Foreign Secretary's and not much more than the Conservative Foreign Secretary's official statement on behalf of the UK government.

Nor do you appear to understand that a Cuban exile responding that he disapproves of Trudeau and Corbyn's comments when emailed a selection of Castro tributes by a WSJ journalist does absolutely nothing to indicate the tribute any more significant than any of the other widely-reported comments Corbyn has made (most of which have provoked some sort of reaction from somebody somewhere, what with Corbyn being a prominent politician). Comments which get politicians into trouble - whether it's with other leftists or the electorate or in some cases even the courts get commentary. Predictable comments which are reported with predictable reactions from predictable people don't. And similarly Wikipedia BLPs report on literally hundreds of MPs being members of solidarity organizations for countries as diverse as Israel and Palestine etc without needing to append the view that joining those organizations is wrong; Corbyn should not be an exception to this norm.

The idea that I'm "scraping the bottom of the barrel" for sourcing when you're citing pieces from Buzzfeed, Business Insider, the Daily Express and Pink News and actually suggesting the article should read more like them is hilarious.

If you wish to devote your Wikipedia-editing career to changing longstanding policies on content and sourcing it's going to be a very long ride. I'd suggest getting a blog instead. Dtellett (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

At no point did I say or even remotely suggest that the Gerry Adams associations are of lesser or similar importance to the Castro remarks. I'm not sure it is useful for me to keep making written responses if you can't understand them. Yes, of course it's "scraping the bottom of the barrel", and crap dishonest editing, to go out of your way to find a source that mentions a subject only in passing so you can have an excuse to not mention that that exact issue has engendered nothing but criticism in the world of reputable commentators. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you now accept my point that the Gerry Adams association is of significantly more import than the Castro tribute, and that your own introduction of vastly more material on the latter was WP:UNDUE and inappropriate.

But if you sincerely believe that it's "crap, dishonest editing" to illustrate the point that a BLP subject was involved with Venezuela Solidarity activism using an article describing his political priorities at various times in his life as opposed to a comment piece on whether Venezuela is or isn't a great place, I'm not sure Wikipedia is really for you. If I'd actually been wanting to annoy you I'd have sourced it to something like this[5] Dtellett (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You've almost got honest discussion down. Of course I agree the Gerry Adams flap is more important. Of course I don't think my edits were undue. Then again, my prose on the critical response to Corbyn was in pretty close proportion with the lengthy praise from Corbyn. But no, evil criticisms! Protect the childrens!

I don't know why you see it as a virtue to have articles about politicians that are littered with campaign-brochure pap from the politician himself, while ignoring criticism reported in the very same sources. That's party-office spin, not wise Wikipedia editing. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest edits

And after a long and discursive debate above, which broadly came to a consensus that we do not need either lots of commentary slagging Corbyn off or lots of detail about Cuba/Castro to justify such commentary, especially when sourced to Buzzfeed ... we now have the unilateral insertion of massive amounts of exactly that, about not only Cuba but now Venezuela too. Sourced to right-wing papers who hate Corbyn, including, of all outlets, the Daily Express. Seriously, you need to back off here, or as suggested, work out exactly what you want added and start an RFC to get agreement *before* adding it. N-HH talk/edits 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention Buzzfeed, which I didn't cite, and Daily Express, which is cited once, but could be removed without affecting anything.

Yet you don't mention the cites to Financial Times, BBC, Labour Uncut, The Guardian, The Spectator, The Telegraph, The Independent, and Huffington Post.

Does not really seem like a fair or accurate characterization, at all. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You threw a lot of source material against the wall and some of it wasn't awful and added a vast amount of superfluous commentary about the nature of the Castro regime after pages of argument about not doing that. Anyone reading it would think that his Castro tribute was the most problematic episode of his career; the exact opposite is true. Believe it or not, I'd actually like to see more well sourced and appropriate criticism of Corbyn in here but that edit's just bad faith trolling. Reverted. Dtellett (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

“Some of it wasn’t awful” is a funny way of saying one source out of seven might be disputed. As for “a vast amount of superfluous commentary about the nature of the Castro regime”—I see 93 words, of which a third (31 words) are used to name the sources and commentators. Leaving 62 words of ‘’actual commentary’’ focusing on the backlash to Corbyn’s comments and the reasons for it. No “superfluous commentary”. You’re just playing word games—that’s the only bad faith involved here. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussing this rationally with you is as impossible as it has been from the outset. Whether deliberately or not, you continue to miss the points being made. I mentioned Buzzfeed as being the publication you were previously relying on and edit-warring over. I said, very broadly, that you were now citing right-wing papers, including the Express. You were, even if you were citing others too, which I never said you weren't. The lengthy debate above has explained the broader problem with adding endless media commentary – from whatever source and whatever angle – about relatively trivial aspects of Corbyn's political life, especially if the purpose is simply, as it seems, to have some kind of tangential debate about the iniquities of the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, and Corbyn's appalling indulgence of them. As noted above, please get a blog and expand on this theme there if this is what interests you. Read together with your actions on my talk page, this is looking more and more like trolling as much as it is good-faith over-enthusiasm. N-HH talk/edits 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned buzzfeed because it enables you to go on talking without addressing the extensive RS commentary you don't want to include. You claimed the material I wrote was "sourced to right-wing papers who hate Corbyn" in an obvious effort to mislead. This is not honest discussion. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: You wrote: Of course there's a "right" and "wrong". Widely published criticism from top RS's goes into WP articles. Fin. No, you need to read WP:ONUS. Reliability of a source has little to do with whether one includes it in this Wikipedia page. There is probably a shitload of stuff written about Corbyn in WP:RS every day. Do we include everything into this BLP? No. What goes into the Wikipedia page is decided by consensus. There are no shortcuts. You can put forth your best case, and others can put forth theirs. And the consensus will decide. You can open an RfC, or you can keep talking till the cows come home. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Utterly wrong. What goes into articles is determined by WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT. Thus criticism and praise is always supposed to be reflected if it is widely published by RS. Consensus is only supposed to be a model for collaboratively reaching content-specific points of agreement on how these policies apply. It fundamentally doesn't work if some editors incorrectly think they are entitled to !vote against material simply because they don't like it. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, utterly correct. And "not honest discussion"? No, it isn't. And your participation on this page is also basically just disruptive. Look at the length of the threads above and the number of people you are arguing with, often with transparent non-sequiturs and denials of things that have already and clearly been said. I'm done here, other than to repeat: WP biographies are not the place to conduct tangential political debates by inserting summaries of or cherry-picked quotes from 101 op-eds that you have read and happen to like and agree with, and then trying to bludgeon everyone into submission by shouting "RS". N-HH talk/edits 20:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Every statement in your comment is a fabrication or gross mischaracterization. "Cherry picked"? A laughable claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from remarks earlier in this thread about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that other editors here approve of Jeremy Corbyn or Cuban Solidarity activism. I can't speak for others, but I think he's a walking disaster of a politican and don't have the slightest bit of interest in defending silly campaigns to back dictatorships either. On the other hand, I also know that WP:WEIGHT means we don't include criticism of everything a Corbyn or a Trump says in a biography simply because it is criticised, and particularly don't believe article sections should become a WP:COATRACK to accommodate an editor's obsession with enumerating obvious problems with tangentially-relevant foreign dictatorships. If I wanted to write what I really wanted to say about Corbyn, I'd get a blog. Seriously, maybe you should do the same. Dtellett (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at that "expenses" paragraph, since you have presented that as something with real bonafide UK politics significance and thus worthy of 150 words:

It starts with the observation that a year after the scandal, he submitted the "lowest" expenses claim (£8.95), which is an interesting frame for two reasons: first, the year of the scandal, he's reported to have taken a £2,812 supplement for living in London; and second, the £8.95 printer cartridge isn't lower than £0, which is what 78 MPs drew for their own expenses. Sure, the WP article mentions that, but why even mention a claim about having the "lowest" expenses when it has to be so heavily caveated that 78 others drew even less? And then there's the fact that this unusual perspective comes to us from . . . the Islington Gazette, a local weekly paper—published on Thursdays!—and . . . a fashion article in the Guardian. Just little tidbit mentions. No serious commentary, no real commentators, no political figures being quoted. Pure puff.

And then even though sources have plainly ignored this trivial posturing, you seem to think it's necessary to then go digging through multiple primary sources for additional evidence to buttress the claim (unstated, but hey!) that Jeremy Corbyn is just wonderful because look how he guards the public fisc with his socially responsible sprendthrift ways! He wasn't involved in the scandal but let's do some OR to illustrate how wonderful that is—and in the process let's accidentally only mention the £8.95 expense and not the £2812 one even though the latter was sourced more prominently! Never mind all those irrelevant opeds and news source mentions and news source mentions of opeds, in major sources, about his Castro/Venezuela posturing, something not only touching actual freaking world affairs but obviously a cause for people both in and out of his own party to question his leadership, let's talk about puff-piece posturing about the cost of a printer cartridge that has gone unnoticed by everybody. "Go get a blog", you say, as if it was me who wrote all those opeds and RS news commentary, forced all those politicians to ignore Corbyn's expenses posturing and criticize his Castro posturing. "Go get a blog", indeed. You're bad. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if you prefer, we could have "he usually has the lowest expense claims of any MP" sourced to the BBC[6]; his local paper has the virtue of being more accurate and the tedious detail actually has the effect of somewhat undermining his oft-repeated claim to be particularly parsimonious. The London supplement is given to all London MPs that don't claim a lot more for housing expenses so isn't a particularly exciting find. The very next paragraph of this "puff" section points out that he was slapped on the wrist by a regulator for accepting money from a rogue state TV channel...

Regardless of how unimportant you find that particular paragraph and how important you think it is the world listens to views of Cuban dissidents, fact about expenses followed by comment from MP is a pretty standard format for writing up UK MPs' bios. Writing in the form of MP joined an organization to support a country, followed by multiple lines of opinion about why they were wrong to and multiple other opinions on the leadership of that country is a very non-standard approach, for good reason. Needless to say, plenty of opeds are written questioning plenty of politicians' endorsement of foreign administrations with questionable records such as Cuba, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia or the United States; we don't include such opinions unless the relationship blows up into a major scandal or event, particularly not if the support amounts to nothing more than a few kind words and events attended whilst in opposition. Otherwise any major national party leader's encyclopedia entry would be an impenetrable mass of mostly critical opinion.

I repeat, if you want to write an expose of how bad Venezuela and its supporters are, whether sourced to op eds or party blogs, you might genuinely enjoy focusing those efforts more constructively somewhere which isn't an encyclopedia. Dtellett (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously many MPs living in London received the MP-living-in-London stipend. J. Christ, you sure do like to pratt on and pretend as though you are teaching me things. Anyway, it's at least as relevant as him bragging that his only expense for the entire year after the scandal was for a printer cartridge, and it had better sourcing than the printer cartridge claim, which involved 1/314th the amount of money, and which pointless posturing was roundly ignored. And as noted, since there were 78 others who spent even less taxpayer money, the printer-cartridge posturing isn't particularly informative, either. It is campaign-brochure puff.

You keep attempting to personalize the dispute, pretending it's a Wikipedia user named Factchecker_atyourservice that finds these issues relevant and important. But it's the sourcing that shows the relevance and importance. You've given me silly lectures at length about why the printer cartridge posturing is damned important because of the expenses scandal, whereas you insist the Castro criticism and other material was not, but sourcing shows the opposite. Nobody cares that he emerged from the scandal unscathed, lots of people care that he gives political cover to tyrants. The story doesn't change if you edit out that lengthy paragraph and replace it with "Corbyn had the lowest expenses the year following the scandal". As even the BBC source shows, it's a trivial item of praise warranting, at best, a few words, and it's of less significance, both immediate and enduring, than the Castro remarks/dictatorship solidarity and ensuing backlash.

Again: you're inventing a non-existent content policy—one that flies in the face of actual content policies—and then applying it selectively, while the majority of material in the article doesn't meet that standard. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly "pretending it's a Wikipedia user named Factchecker_atyourservice that finds these issues relevant and important" when it's one user of that name has listed every press source on the subject they can find, irrespective of quality, and expended hundreds of words explaining why op-ed coverage criticising Corbyn for giving an insufficiently equivocal tribute should be inserted. You seem to be under the impression that the emphasis in a biographies should be determined by sheer quantity of sources; it isn't, and BLPs don't and shouldn't include criticisms of every inconsequential comment and policy that individual makes simply because numerous criticisms exist, and instead focus primarily on the facts, the things that individual said, and the fallout from the really big screwups they make.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to see Corbyn's expenses trimmed a little (I'm particularly uninterested in his landlord), but the fact remains that regardless of what you think policy should be:

(i) virtually every British MP has a paragraph covering their involvement in the most significant British political scandal of the 2000s in rather more tedious detail than might appear strictly necessary, even if they were only a minor figure in it

(ii) Corbyn's printer cartridge was actually responsible for one of his infrequent appearances in the national press when he was an obscure backbencher [7][8][9].

You can talk about your interpretation of policy articles all you like, and claim my interpretation is "invented" all you like, but the fact is the practical implementation of Wikipedia biographies by a consensus of editors looks rather close to what I am suggesting. Wikipedia would be a very different place if the biography for, say, Donald Trump included observations from the abundance of critical WP:RS pieces that had been written about his each and every utterance but didn't include the relatively rarely mentioned occupation of his paternal grandfather or length of a yacht he sold, but I'm not sure it would be a better encyclopedia as a result.

Nevertheless, numerous other editors have pointed out that if you believe your approach to editing to be the correct one then an RfC is the way to go. Dtellett (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You're utterly full of crap with that ridiculous characterization of my arguments. You are arguing that trivial issues with trivial implications and trivial sourcing—this being borne out by the latest printer-cartridge sources you posted—should be given extensive discussion, while serious issues with serious implications and serious sourcing should be ignored completely. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference to Corbyn and Venezuela was made in passing: "In the past 30 years there has been scarcely a picket line, a demonstration or an anti-war protest at which Corbyn has not featured. Be it solidarity with Chile, Venezuela, Palestine or any one of a long list of leftist causes, Jeremy was there." Notice that context is provided as opposed to what we now have in the article, that Corbyn is "involved with Venezuelan solidarity activism." That doesn't tell us anything, such as which side he supports and what activities he carries out. TFD (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That source was selected as a compromise to appease the above user's legitimate if wildly-overstated complaint that the source it replaced - a Caracas newspaper that detailed Corbyn (and provided a video of his speech) - was from a press organization that would usually be considered an unreliable source. It's not high on the list of causes Corbyn supports, most of which are detailed elsewhere, but it's a fairly undisputed fact that he has been involved with Venezuelan solidarity activist organisations and their rallies. I'd be more than happy to see the sentence converted to a summary in the form "Corbyn is involved with a number of solidarity movements related to Chile, Venezuela, Palestine" though, which probably fits better with the paragraph as a whole Dtellett (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of having an article that is encyclopedic you might want to include a footnote explaining that the propaganda word "solidarity" in this case just means "supporting brutal dictatorships as a means of declaring one's opposition to the foreign policy of the United States, and capitalism more generally". Those not steeped in revolutionary culture might not hear the dog whistle. Or you could just use sources that keep an impartial POV and use actual descriptive English instead. Or include both criticism and praise from separate sources. But there I go again with my unwelcome trolling. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems reasonably encyclopedic to describe joining organizations as "solidarity campaigns" when it's their actual name, even though you don't like it; just like we refer to "pro-choice" and "pro-life" activism even though both sides find their respective adversaries' preferred term more than a little euphemistic, and manage to avoid appending utterly nonpartisan footnotes to say that what it really means is "murdering babies" or "subjugating women". And no, we don't need to include criticism (or praise) of an organization or cause an article simply because the article subject supported it, which is why you shouldn't find references to an MP's membership of the Henry Jackson Society accompanied by quotes from a Guardian screed about the evils of said MPs participating in such an overtly pro-military-intervention Atlanticist think tank. You'd probably get a more sympathetic hearing for your suggested amendments if you phrased them less like a cross between an upset child and a McCarthyite pamphleteer, by the way. Dtellett (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that say Corbyn is a member of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, just that he addressed them once. Weight says that what makes facts worthy for inclusion is the degree of coverage they have received in reliable sources relative to the overall topic. This connection has received virtually none. Some may find any position other than wanting to overthrow the Venezuelan government to be scandalous, but you need to show that this position is widely reported. TFD (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, @Dtellett: it would be "reasonably encyclopedic" to use the organizations' names, but using the word as an adjective would only be appropriate if there were an appropriate Wiki article that adequately contextualizes and explains the meaning of the term, as there is with both the pro-life and pro-choice descriptors, which are mere euphemisms that can be explained in a few words, including the objections of each side to the euphemism used by the other.

"Solidarity" is no such word, it's got a variety of meanings ranging from politically charged rhetoric to references to specific historical (as opposed to contemporary) political movements, and naturally as a result the Wiki article on solidarity is incredibly abstract and offers absolutely nothing with which to anchor the use of the term here—such as an explanation of what issues the Cubans and Venezuelan regimes seek "solidarity" with other political groups—nor is the article on the Cuba Solidarity Campaign much help. So really the use of plain English would serve readers quite a bit better, aside from describing the political groups using their actual names which contain the word "solidarity". But it would be silly to use "solidarity" in the article text as a plain adjective without any explanation of what that is supposed to mean.

And of course, I wouldn't suggest coatrack criticism about a controversial cause simply because a politician supported it, but criticism about a politician's public remarks about a controversial cause couldn't more perfectly fit the bill, as criticism of a politician's political views is one of the most germane forms of criticism to which they might be subjected, second only to criticism of their official actions. And that's so even if the controversial figure is only an illiberal think tank and not a population-starving, opposition-murdering autocrat. (Where do you come up with these comparisons, by the way? Did you study the concept of proportion under Picasso?) Factchecker_atyourservice 01:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)