El Juche

Your edits to 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

You said (in the article content, instead of the talk page where it belongs)--"Sigh. As this is mostly based on interviews there is trouble providing concrete citations which would satiate wikinazis." Here's the first clue that something doesn't belong on Wikipedia -- when you can't find reliable sources for the information. Personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia articles. BTW, calling me a wikinazi meets Godwin's law. ;) - Ageekgal 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is about to be deleted based on discussion on the article's talk page and at [1]. We'll probably wait a couple more days before deleting it if you'd like to add your input to the discussion first. Cla68 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel people who testified before congress, counterterrorism experts, NSA analysts and investigative journalists are expert sources.

"Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately."

For some reason investigative journalists, intelligence experts and reporters are not qualified to discuss issues of journalism, intelligence or coverups. I do not understand why NSA and military officials are not qualified to discuss intelligence and military issues according to wikipedia.

If my sources are too partisan I can understand why the article was deleted (luckily I saved it). But I posted citations from the new yorker, counterterrorism experts, military officials, NSA analyists, people who have testified before congress and award winning investigative journalists with decades of experience.

I called you a wikinazi because I seriously doubt you hold other articles to the standard you are holding this one to. I am accusing you of being hypocritical wrt what you attempt to censor and what you allow.

Here are my source on topics of military, intelligence and investigative journalism.

Wayne Madsen - NSA analyst and ex-Navy intelligence officer who has testified before congress written for the Village Voice and Wired who has worked with congressman Bob Barr on privacy legislation.

Dave Lindorff - investigative journalist who has won a project censored award, 30 years of experience in journalism, written for publications like the Nation and Counterpunch

Larry C. Johnson - counterterrorism expert and ex-CIA member

Dana Priest - Pulitzer prize winning intelligence and military expert for the Washington Post with over 20 years of experience.

Salon magazine

The New Yorker magazine

The Times (UK) magazine

these are reliable sources for military, intelligence or investigative journalism.

As far as the fringe theory claim, there is merit there, I will grant that. Some of my sources do express a political bias. Is there any way to express this information (which I feel is important) while explaining that there may be a political2 bias to it? To claim that an encyclopedia entry that is 'only' based on Pulitzer prize winning journalists, award winning investigative journalists, intelligence experts and well known magazines is unproven is extremely false at best.

Dana Priest and Dave Lindorff have both won major awards for uncovering controversial facts involving intelligence and military actions. Lindorff for info on the draft, Priest for info on secret prisons.

To claim investigative journalists who have won major awards for exposing controversial, but true, information involving the military and intelligence are 'unreliable sources for exposing controversial, but true invovling the military and intelligence' strikes me as very, very biased at best, if not irrational at worst.

Who is better at exposing controversial military/intelligence issues than award winning journalists who have won awards for doing that exact thing?

And honestly, do you hold everyone to the standards you hold me? When other people 'only' have Pulitzer prize winning journalists and individuals with decades of military/intelligence experience as sources do you delete their entries?

I am but one Wikipedian, with no more or less "say" than anyone else. I'm not even an editor/moderator/etc. Yes, I expect all articles to follow Wikipedia guidelines and you can see in my edit history that I do my best to tag and/or improve articles with respect to citations, maintaining a neutral point of view, not giving undue weight to fringe theories, etc. Why are you so quick to cast aspersions on others? At any rate, consensus spoke so you can take your issue up with the world at large here on Wikipedia... I did nothing to you personally and a debate is dead once you call someone a Nazi (see Godwin's law. Your attitude does absolutely nothing to lend credence to your comments, in fact it greatly weakens it. Best, - Ageekgal (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Helpme

{{helpme}} - I am wanting to write a 'conspiracy theory about the 2007 Iran nuclear incident' article. In it I will quote 2 Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalists, an ex-assistant secretary of defense and several other intelligence, military and investigative journalism experts.

I want to know what will probably happen to it so I don't spend 4 hours writing it only to have it deleted.

I was somewhat rude in my above paragraph(s) but I just don't get how I am not quoting 'reliable sources' when my sources are the New Yorker, the Times, Seymour hersh, Dana Priest or counterterror experts. There is political bias in some of these reporters, but my sources are all legit news sources, military/intel experts and journalists who have won major prizes for investigative journalism.

With all due respect, I've looked through your contributions to the other nuclear article, and I'm not finding a lot to work on. Your previous contributions showed some serious WP:SOAP and WP:OR issues, both of which are strong enough reasons to have an article deleted. Inserting text into an article attacking your opponents shows some issues dealt with in this essay. If you really believe that you have followed WP:RS (as it appears you do), then I suggest reading up on those other two policies I've given you, and coming back and writing a neutral article with a neutral title. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. I am not trying to be a jerk by saying that either because I need advice on writing articles properly w/o showing bias or rudeness. I feel that this is an encyclopedia entry worthy issue. There are a variety of encyclopedia entries under conspiracy theories on wikipedia, some interesting and important. I think this one is too.

I will read the articles you list.

Speedy deletion of Gang of Five

A tag has been placed on Gang of Five requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RedZion^X 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

BBForums

I agree the reference is well detailed and has a lot of photos but as anyone can start a forum, grab some boxes, print some labels and take pictures the reference is dubious at best. If you can find any news website that even has a quote of the mans alligation, I'll put it in.--mitrebox (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bev Harris has appeared in the documentary 'hacking democracy' which was shown on HBO, and has also had an interview with Howard Dean showing how easy it would be to hack an election.

Here is Nancy Tobi of the group New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee expressing the same concerns for the NashuaTelegraph.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/NEWS08/421841469/-1/news

For Bev Harris I can find Ars Technica

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-analysis-new-hampshire-by-the-numbers.html

And a news article on the lack of integrity of NH ballots.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-1-12/63935.html

.--El Juche (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The discrepancies cited in the last article have already been covered. Bev's arguments seem to be more of a lack of applicable controls and dis orginiazation of the NH state elections office. That would likely make them more relevant to the NH Prmairy 2008 article. --mitrebox (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident"Apostle12 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Two: Request for change in consensus

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)