Talk:John McTernan

message: Can anyone explain to me why the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times, Progress Online etc are being questioned as "reliable sources"? Anna Lertreader (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The material about McTernan's political views (sourced to the above) and responses to them seem reasonable to me. The section about "McTernan Predicts" looks like an attack piece to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Looks like it to me" is neither factual nor consensual. It's your opinion. Please stop edit-warring pending resolution. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the alleged poor quality of McTernan's predictions been discussed in any reliable sources? If not, why are you creating a section about it? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alleged"? Kindly demonstrate which are in dispute, and identify which words or phrases in the section are not neutrally worded. These are facts. I have already modified the text for better neutrality. If McTernan is notable then things for which he is notable - including the fact that a social-media hashtag with thousands of entries exists to mock the quality of his predictions - are legitimate content. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYNTH. Just because you can source predictions of his that went wrong, does not mean that he is bad/terrible at making predictions. A social media thing is not a reliable source. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he's always wrong at predicting doesn't mean he's bad at it? Um, right. Tell you what, find me some he's got right for balance. Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no examples, then? And no sign of consensus support for your view either. These remain factual statements, and it remains factual that McTernan's Jonah touch has been widely remarked upon. They are not personal comments about the subject's private life and therefore do not breach BLP. They concern solely his professional work, and it is fair to note his history as an "expert" analyst. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the whiff of Corbyn sock puppet about you, "Anna" Jamespo (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that constructive and worthwhile contribution. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Link at the beginning of the section features hundreds if not thousands of examples.Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "link at the beginning of the section" is a Twitter hashtag, for goodness' sake. WP:SPS and WP:RS apply. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So? It satisfies "widely remarked upon". It does not profess to constitute an academic assessment. The predictions and the outcomes are the reliably-sourced facts. I'm happy to remove the line about "widely remarked" if it'll stop you bleating. But why are you instantly edit-warring rather than attempting to achieve consensus support for the removal of a section of properly-sourced and unquestioned facts? Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have used synthesis, as Jmorrison230582 has said, to make a series of non-neutral assertion. As you will find from the policy documents, this is inadmissible. By all means, find a reliable source critical of McTernan. As it is you could report the reversions by myself and others on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, but I doubt you would find any support there. Philip Cross (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

text: This issue has already been raised on the AN/I page. Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

text: As always, "legitimate criticism" is solely dependent on finding good and admissible third-party sources which express an opinion. If they are absent, such an argument cannot be made, however valid they might seem to an editor. Philip Cross (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The reasons why this is an unacceptable section have been explained many times already. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does not matter if you think this is sustainable. The issue has to have been raised by someone writing for a reliable source.  Reverted as before. Philip Cross (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The section was not a "a wholly neutral list of relevant information". It is list of information that has been gathered by you in an attempt to lead the reader to a particular conclusion.  For all the reader knows, it could be a highly selective list of cherry-picked examples designed to mislead.  This is why Wikipedia demands that you do not attempt to construct a position from multiple sources, but that you find a reliable source that has already made the point.  This is most particularly the case with content that criticises people. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having been asked to look at this page I'm finding the argument by those opposed to the section hard to follow. The facts are certainly properly sourced. Is the problem a conclusion breaching WP:SYNTH (in which case the last deletion would be clearly unjust), or is it simply that the conclusion is not supported by a reliable source? It can't be both because they conflict, but both have been cited by opponents. GeorgeLL V2 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: Has John McTernan ever been a member of the Labour Party? 
If he is not now and never has been is this worth being said in the article? 
Many Labour Party members want him purged for his extreme abuse, but if he is not a member, simply a paid consultant, he cannot be purged.
31.51.227.8 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has John McTernan ever been a member of the Labour Party?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John McTernan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303225510/http://thinkers.sa.gov.au/thinkers/mcternan/who.aspx to http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/thinkers/mcternan/who.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513034149/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/newsfront.aspx?sectionid=17858&IsTopic=1 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/newsfront.aspx?sectionid=17858&IsTopic=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified