Talk:Piers Corbyn

Lots of aggressive political language in the article, more suitable for a political attack rather than a reference work

There is a lot of aggressive political language in the article - for example "conspiracy theorist", "false", "discredited" and so on. A reference article should give the opinions of the person and give the opinions of their opponents (with links to both), and then leave the reader to make up their own mind. A reference article should not be a polemical political, and personal, attack.2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:BD99:D637:A5D9:284A (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and other policy documents. In articles about individuals like Piers Corbyn, the mainstream account must be included and the fringe nature of his opinions made clear. Thus the words and terms you find objectionable are entirely legitimate in discussing someone like Piers Corbyn. Philip Cross (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion would go against policies like WP:RS, WP:GEVAL, WP:ABOUTSELF, etc. There is nothing personal about a summary of reliable sources. If you believe a source fails WP:BLPRS, or is being misrepresented, please be specific, as article talk pages are not for the general discussion of the topic, but to improve the article (WP:NOTFORUM). You are also welcome to suggest additional sources, if they contradict the current ones. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We report on facts. If someone claims $\pi$ equals 3.2 and another claims that it doesn't (not a hypothetical), we report the correct fact, and state whether each person is correct. Same for climate change and COVID-19. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That is false. WIkipedia is know for it's "verifiability, not truth" stance, so no. Stryker Genesis (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

True. But we do follow reliable sources, which results in the same outcome in the cases of pi, COVID and climate change. Corbyn's opinions about the latter two still lose. (I don't know his opinion on pi.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, clarifying the intent of wording removed from the policy more than nine years ago! Congrats to all for long memories. . . dave souza, talk 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thatcher and the miners' strike

The current text says:

"Corbyn criticised Margaret Thatcher's acceptance of the fact of anthropogenic global warming (also saying that she later recanted her position) around the time of the 1984–85 miners' strike, judging it a disingenuous attempt to justify shutting down coal mines.[40]". The reference is to this article in the Observer.

The suggestion Thatcher accepted global warming around the time of the miners' strike, and used it to justify pit closures, is incorrect. There is no record of Thatcher mentioning global warming before the late 80s - I believe her first public reference was the Royal Society speech in 1988. So either this quote needs to be contextualised (making clear that the connection between the strike and global warming is an assertion of Corbyn's) or, perhaps more sensibly, the text should be deleted - it's a minor and easily falsified conspiracy theory.

Bob (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No-one has done anything about your suggestion, which seems sensible. I have found a good source which refutes Corbyn's idea that Thatcher used climate change to justify running down the coal industry (from the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data) so rather than deleting the reference this will serve to contextualise it. BobBadg (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

The page states this individual's OCCUPATION in the right hand side box as "Weather forecaster, businessman, anti-vaccination activist and conspiracy theorist". An occupation, by definition is a "a job or profession". While he may certainly be a forecaster or a businessman, it's questionable to include "anti-vaccination activist" as an occupation and even more questionable to include "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation.

I suggest removing "anti-vaccination activist and conspiracy theorist" entirely as neither is a job or profession this person holds.

His beliefs are addressed in the section that is dedicated to his beliefs. If you want to argue him being vocal on numerous issues makes him an "activist" then replace "anti-vaccination activist and conspiracy theorist" with "activist"... as his publicly known beliefs are not limited to matters related to vaccination. 100.35.180.73 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't necessarily disagree, but this will be contentious, and should be discussed beforehand. Hopefully some of the hundred or so talk page watchers will provide some input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Ohnoitsjamie took care of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Change 'Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been a prominent proponent of conspiracy theories. He has described SARS-CoV-2 as a "hoax", frequently campaigned against lockdowns and against COVID-19 vaccines, and has described COVID-19 vaccines as dangerous. Corbyn has been arrested on several occasions for partaking of protests against public health laws, and for calling on supporters to commit violent acts against members of Parliament' to 'Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, he was a prominent proponent of conspiracy theories. He described SARS-CoV-2 as a "hoax", frequently campaigned against lockdowns and against COVID-19 vaccines, and described COVID-19 vaccines as dangerous. Corbyn was arrested on several occasions for partaking of protests against public health laws, and for calling on supporters to commit violent acts against members of Parliament' Zawdaw (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

2024 general election Piers Corbyn is the candidate for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001085. I didn't know where to put this on the page. Would be open to suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirse1312 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Childish

That's how I would describe the general tone of this article after the latest changes (2020 or so onwards).

Why do people who feel passionate (one way or another) about a subject think it would be a great idea to screw with the corresponding wankypedia ~~copypastas~~ articles on the subject?

For normal readers looking for a starting point, it makes it really annoying. Really, couldn't you people find yourselves another hobby / occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.188.180.185 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)