he Telegraph and The Daily mail, but there are many more (see, e.g: [1], [2], [3][4]). The Telegraph article explicitly says "Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that 9/11 was "manipulated" to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible to allow the West to go to war in Afghanistan." - which is what I put in the article . Can the editors removing this sourced information explain why they are doing so? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, starting out with, Corbyn believes, when referencing a single 12 years old comment is a npov issue to start. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And because Corbyn does not appear to have claimed anything of the sort, even then. Yes, the Telegraph article suggests that in the headline and first paragraph, but it then goes on to quote the 2003 Morning Star piece it is relying on in more detail – in which Corbyn says, "After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made ... This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan". That is not him saying that blame was fraudently assigned to bin Laden. The Telegraph, whose editorial line is incredibly hostile to Corbyn, can choose to insinuate that that was what Corbyn implied (and other papers can choose to recycle the suggestion) but there is no reason for Corbyn's WP page to follow that line. The media can be a good source for basic facts, but that doesn't mean pages here have to follow, or even reflect, partisan media commentary and assertion based on those facts. This isn't a hit piece. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. The idea that Corbyn is a "truther" is preposterous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding this crap from the Daily Telegraph is totally unacceptable and the most serious violation of WP:BLP. Despite what the Telegraph maliciously implied he did not say blame was wrongly or falsely apportioned to bin Laden, as other say above. Mentioning one line from a 12 year old newspaper article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV AusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia ought never label a person a "truther" but The Telegraph is a reliable source for what Corbyn had written. Surely one could find a reliable source saying Corbyn has complex opinions about 9/11? From his comments in Parliament, it appears he pretty much distrusts the military in general. Newspapers do, indeed, print "crap" but the issue is one of weight, not one of exclusion as being "crap." More troubling is the quote "“The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.” " which appears to be Conspiracy 101 stuff :(. [5] is sort of neat - it beseeches UK truthers to support Corbyn in the Labour election. Carefully worded, this has a lot better basis than "Piggate" to be sure. And a news article quoting a public person is not a BLP violation - it makes neither moral nor criminal allegations of any sort at all about Corbyn. Oh -- newspapers headlines in my experience often differ from the content of the article that they are pasted on to. Collect (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- completely undue, no basis for including this sort of thing. The Telegraph and Mail will be writing a story on everything that Corbyn was ever reported to have said and spinning it into a lurid story. This does not make for encyclopedic content. --ℕ ℱ 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Undue? Surely a news story, in multiple venues, describing a major political leader's opinion of one of the major events of the 21st century is a s notable as the fact that he likes making jam? Or are we going to write this article as a hagiography? Wikipedia decides notability and due weight by the preponderance of reliable sources covering an event. This easily meets that standard. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTNEWS. Daily Mail not a WP:RS, Telegraph questionable. Comments have been maliciously taken out of context by press with an agenda. That hardly makes a good case for inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph is quite clearly a reliable source, and I've listed half a dozen others, and could easily find half dozen more, kindly drop this bullshit. You are trying to argue for removal based on both that the story is 12 years old, and that it is "breaking news"? clutching at straws are we? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your view. Telegraph has shown extraordinary bias regarding Corbyn. Express not a reliable source. Other sources simply restating the original story. How about you actually read WP:NOTNEWS, by the way. For example it states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person" and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". AusLondonder (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not just 'my view', it is the view of the Wikipedia community at large, as expressed by experienced editors on WP:RSN. You can check out https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163 for example, and note the comments by Itsmejudith, for example. And you are welcome to take this issue to RSN, again, but you don't get to disqualify a mainstream UK paper just 'cause you don;t like its editorial line. Other sources quoting or re-using the Telegraph article reinforces it reliability and importance, not the other way around. I've read WP:NOTNESW. Corbyn is neither a "celebrity" nor a "sport figure", and a politicians' opinion of one of the major events of the 21st century is on no way comparable to the results of a football match. As per the commnets belwo, both the NWO comment and the Bin Laden one have ben covered by numerous sources and are obviously notable. I will be adding them , reworded to carefully reflect the actual words used by Corbyn in 2003. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the NWO quote at least is notable yet agree that the issue has been spun by the sources above. I agree "Truther" or any other pejorative language should not be used and nor should this article promote fringe theories WP:FRNG. For me, the question is where the info (at least what we can determine as reliable) should go and what weight it should have. WykiP (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would you suggest to goes? I think teh foreign affairs subsection of the "views" section is appropriate. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the bin Laden comment, the NWO quote has been spun out of all recognition by the Telegraph to suggest that Corbyn was talking about Illuminati conspiracy theories, when he said nothing of the sort. George Bush Sr used the phrase too (albeit in a positive sense) – it is/was a common term applied to the post-Cold War landscape by a wide range of people. The idea that we should not follow a newspaper's interpretation of either comment and not post them on this page as facts is not "bullshit" or "clutching at straws". Does the person arguing for inclusion really think this edit is even vaguely OK? Or understand how the media works in terms of shock headlines, editorial slant and lazy recycling of other outlets' stories? That said, a brief note of his views as expressed at the time, without the "Truther" sub-heading or media spin, and placed say where his opposition to the Afghan and Iraq wars is already covered, would be another thing. N-HH talk/edits 07:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:"As with the bin Laden comment, the NWO quote has been spun out of all recognition by the Telegraph to suggest that Corbyn was talking about Illuminati conspiracy theories, when he said nothing of the sort."
- Where's your evidence he was not? WykiP (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're done here. You carry on if you want, but I doubt others will see any point in playing this game with you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The NWO material is covered in many UK papers now ... but attacking other editors does not seem kosher here. Collect (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]