Loading
  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Father

Sources come up online for his mother being a maths teacher, and for his father being an engineer (for GEC); nothing seems to come up with relation to his being an expert in power rectifiers. Where did this come from?

college?

with two A levels at grade E how did he go to college? He failed to graduate? Something not right here. 89.243.48.130 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely plausible (and backed up by sources) that he was admitted on to his course with those grades. North London Poly is not Oxford or Cambridge. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got two Es at "A" level. I was admitted to University of London, Bedford College, to study philosophy. This was long before the grade-inflation that has resulted in anything less than four A++'s being considered a waste of exam fees. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify why he was not permitted to stand as a candidate?

Currently the article mentions that he had unanimous support from the local Constituency Labour Party. According to this article of Brevia Consulting (relatively well known among those in government) all that is then needed is for a local husting to confirm who gets selected out of a shortlist compiled by the CLP. (https://www.brevia.co.uk/news/politics/how-are-parliamentary-candidates-selected/)

But if that didn't happen, at what stage and how was he not permitted to stand? I could email him and ask myself but since Wikipedia prefers secondary sources perhaps someone who better understands UK politics could look into it? Cheers 46.162.86.84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on lede

@Roger 8 Roger Apologies if the wording itself is grammatically incorrect, I thought that it was being changed to a past tense due to uncertainty of his status as an MP. English is indeed not my first language. Nontheless, doesn’t “has served as” imply the individual is not currently serving as but had done so? If so, is there a way to appropriately reword this in a grammatically correct way,

Respectfully, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'has served as' is a present perfect tense. That means it is about something that exists now (present time) (he IS an MP) following from a fixed past time, ie 1983, (ie since 1983).. and that state of being an MP continued from 1883 till now. The word 'since' means that is the starting point of actions in the past. If this isn't clear please google present perfect tense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the clarification. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

The photograph under "Post-leadership" has the wrong year. Change "Corbyn sits on the backbenches in his first Prime Minister's Questions since his resignation as Labour leader, 22 April 2024" to "Corbyn sits on the backbenches in his first Prime Minister's Questions since his resignation as Labour leader, 22 April 2020." NOTES: The uploaded photo correctly attributes its origin to 2020, but the caption is incorrectly stated as 2024. Corbin's first PMQs after stepping down from leadership was in 2020. Phillips-Bee (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done meamemg (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]