Neilmc

Welcome!

Hello, Neilmc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gamaliel 22:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Neilmc. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. Based on your previous edits, I have made a list of articles you might like to work on. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was it removed?

The question is, why did you put it in in the first place? (Re: [1]) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is informative about Bush. Who are you ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmnc (talk • contribs) .

I was the one who reverted your addition. What exactly does it inform the reader of? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush's carefree attitude towards war. Why remove it without looking at it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Oh I did look at it, I just wanted to see what you thought about it. I don't really think it's appropriate... is the president not allowed to laugh? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Before announcing War ? Would you be in a laughing mood ? You can't possibly have downloaded the video in 10 seconds so don't pretend you looked at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Note that you added the link into the page at 22:37 and that I reverted the edit where you added it in at 22:54 and 22:55. I had over 15 minutes to watch the video.

Regardless, if you would like to propose the addition of this link to the article, please propose it on Talk:George W. Bush... busy and sometimes controversial articles like this are typically built on concensus. I will add the request for you if you like. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note I added at 22:37 and someone else removed it at 22:37 then I re added it at 21:55 and you removed it at 21:55. I'm not bothered about it, was just an experiment anyway so forget it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Conspriracy theories

Hello Neilmc. I think you misunderstand why I'm removing this story from the LBJ page. Its inclusion is fine on pages relating to Howard Hunt and on pages relating to other theories about Kennedys assassination.

Unfortunately there is no definitive proof that LBJ was involved in the assassination, and on an Encyclopedia its all about what we can prove not what we 'think' happened. That is why I have been removing this particular allegation against Johnson. Until there is evidence its simply opinion and as you know, we don't do opinion on Wiki.

As a non-american perhaps I can see this a little more clearly than people who are closer to these issues. Thats why my main interest here is in seeing that we follow the article guidelines and not include a unprovable allegation from what is, in the final analysis a very dubious source. Galloglass 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Galloglass,

OK, so you are happy that the confession was made, at least we've cleared that up. Your problem is that there is no definitive evidence that LBJ killed JFK. Can I ask you what evidence you would accept as definitive ? Like I said there is a wealth of evidence out there, I can recommend watching The Guilty Men episode of The Men who killed Kennedy which is available on youtube, if you need convincing.

If LBJ did have JFK murdered, do you think that this is a relevant point to include in the article ? I think it is very important, I think that there needs to be at least some reference to it on the page. And there is no opinion in my statement is there ? It is a simple statement of fact. There is no POV involved so this is an erroneous claim on your part.

May I ask what you believe about the assassination ? Do you believe the Lone Nut story or do you accept it was a conspiracy ? If it was a conspiracy then LBJ must have been onboard mustn't he ? There is no way it would have gone ahead without at least his approval, otherwise the conspirators risk the new president tracking them down.

I also wouldn't consider Howard Hunt a dubious source. He is the perfect source, he organised the Watergate break in so cleary he is an insider doing dirty tricks for the president. How could there possibly be a better source for a story like this ? Are you aware of Hunt's career ? He was a high flyer in the CIA, head of several CIA stations including Mexico city and he organised the coup in Guatemala and was heavily involved in the Bay of Pigs debacle. He was right there in the centre of history in this period.

By the way I am from the North West of England like you . .

I'm sorry wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website. Simply put, these view have no place in an Encyclopedia. Galloglass 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so your argument is you have no argument. Hmmmmm. I think wikipedia should be a repository for facts not a place where you can air your opinions. My edit contains only facts. You removed it because of your opinion. This should not be allowed to continue. Neilmc 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I removed it BECAUSE it is OPINION. And as you know, opinion has no place in an Encyclopedia. I have no idea why you think this is a fact. It is merely one theory among many behind the Kennedy assasination. Galloglass 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove this statement because including it would go against the neutral point of view policy. This policy demands that points of view are represented proportionately. I cannot see that this has been widely accepted or even reported in the mainstream media. Compare, for example this New York Post article. If you can point to such acceptance then I'll be happy to withdraw this objection but until then this information does not belong in the Lyndon Johnson article (perhaps the Kennedy assassination theories article would be more appropriate.) It would also be useful if any further discussion of this took place at Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY post article is not even about the deathbed confession, it is about Hunt's book where he says he knows nothing about the assassination, so that has no relevance at all. If you don't know anything about this subject why attempt to participate ? Plus are we really using the NY Post as a useful reference source now ? What next, the National Enquirer ? You don't seem to understand what an opinion is either but I suppose it isn't really my place to teach you. Why don't you look it up ? There is no opinion in my statement, it is a statement of fact. You both seem intent on removing information from the article for reasons grounded in pedantry. I'm sure you're happy with your efforts, well done.

I didn't claim that the NY Post article discussed Hunt's deathbed statement. I was using it to illustrate the fact theories linking Johnson to the assassination are considered to be extreme cases. I have seen no evidence that this has changed in the last six months. It is perhaps significant that I could find no coverage at all of the issue in more reputable publications. I accept that your addition contained nothing other than facts - I have never argued otherwise. But simply being a fact does not qualify it for inclusion in this article - it must also comply with the neutral point of view policy which is what keeps Wikipedia articles from turning into lists of any minor allegations that have ever been made against the subject. You may call this pedantry but it is the principle upon which Wikipedia is based.--Cherry blossom tree 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right well at least we agree that there is no opinion in my statement, could you please tell Galloglass this ? I no longer feel like I am talking at a brick wall which is good. I disagree with your interpretation of the NPOV rule though, having just read this from the NPOV page :

The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

Just because something isn't widely covered in the mainstream media does not make it ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. In my view it makes it imperative that it is. It seems to me the media are far too closely tied to the Governmenet's POV and that is a major problem with today's society. I think that this article on LBJ should include somewhere the allegations levelled at him concerning the Kennedy assassination and the other corrupt activities in which he was engaged. The style of the article at the moment is like it is an official bio written by his wife or something. I don't accept that there is no place for any negative items in the article. I think a new section should be created covering these topics. If I do it though, will you just delete it ? If so I won't bother.Neilmc 08:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that neutral point of view allows the inclusion of different perspectives but it demands (in the section entitled "undue weight") that minority views are given less space than widely accepted ones and the views of very small minorities are not included at all.

Considering the article in question, theories including LBJ form a significant part of the Kennedy assassination theory corpus (a popular field) but they are not widely accepted in the mainstream. I think we can probably agree on that. I would have no problem with a paragraph which made the above points and provided brief examples of a few of the more prominent theories. I would object if it failed to clarify the mainstream acceptance of these theories, if it became excessively long (the section at Kennedy assassination theories is far to long for the LBJ article, for example) or if it didn't cite some sources. I'm less familiar with allegations of Johnson's corruption but assuming that it is written in accordance with the neutral point of view policy I have no problem in principle. I personally would include the assassination theories in that section of the article and discussion of corruption separately. Note that this is all my personal opinion and other editors of the LBJ article may disagree - you may like to discuss it on that talk page. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 09:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Right OK well returning to the original one sentence edit regarding the Kennedy assassination which I added to the LBJ article in the Kennedy assassination section, I don't see what your problem with it is then. It doesn't say Hunt's statement hasn't been accepted by the mainstream as fact, would you want this to be somehow added to the sentence ? And as to it being given undue weight then I don't think it could be given any less weight than one sentence. To me creating a new section in the article on LBJ's alleged involvement would only add weight. Considering all this should I just reinstate the edit or do you have a proposal for something more suitable ? Neilmc 11:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The original statement was "In a deathbed statement released in 2007, Watergate figure Howard Hunt states that LBJ orchestrated Kennedy's assassination." As you point out, the main problem is that it implies that Hunt's statement is accepted as fact, which is not the case. It also introduced that incident out of context, without reference to the background of other theories involving LBJ - a different example of undue weight. --Cherry blossom tree 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't point out 'it implies that Hunt's statement is accepted as fact' nor did I think that it did, how did you get that ! Anyhow if you think it does imply that then I think the best thing is just to extend the Kennedy assassination section and outline the main evidence against LBJ with sources which is easy enough, do you agree ? Neilmc 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with Hunts allegation Neilmc is that it is just that; an allegation. There is no evidence to back him up at all. That is why we don't think it belongs in the LBJ article. Galloglass 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the problem was it was an opinion ? Or are you changing tack and saying that allegations aren't allowed now ? Why do you think there is no evidence to back up Hunt's claims ? I have told you where to look on the internet to see the evidence, could you please do your research. Neilmc 08:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your second sentence. In any case, writing "Howard Hunt states that LBJ orchestrated Kennedy's assassination" and ending the paragraph there (in my view) implies that no-one has had cause to question his authority on the issue. Anyway, I have no problem with extending the assassination section somewhat. I may end up disagreeing with you on what should be written there, but we can discuss that if it arises. --Cherry blossom tree 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK so we agree, I'll write a longer piece about LBJ's involvement and submit it soon, thanks.Neilmc 08:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon B. Johnson edit war

Hi Neilmc, you appear to be engaged in an edit war on the article Lyndon B. Johnson. Please don't engage in cyclical reinstatement of disputed content; you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus with other editors. Continued edit warring can lead to editors being blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is already being discussed if you read above . .Neilmc 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)