Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 8 May 2018

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tag

This article has virtually no references that are RS for the content. At any rate, it's not proper to simply deny the concern and then remove article improvement tags. The tag should be restored until any editor who wishes to remove it can show that no further RS citations are needed. The article as it stands today is basically fringe promotion, and may be deleted if it's not improved. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced content and I feel that this article now requires the Notability tag. Do not remove this or you may be blocked from editing. Please read the policy concerning tags and their removal. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion which resulted to a unanimous. Therefore, I've removed the notability tag as this would appear to be no longer relevent and the purpose of these tages are for addressing concerns rather than remaining on articles indefinitely. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability tag is to attract editors to improve the article. If you have secondary independent RS references that have more than an incidental discussion of this organization, then please reveal them and add the associated content. It's very clear that the criterion for removing the tag has not been met. The notability tag is not the same thing as an AfD. Please do not edit war this tag in cahoots with the single purpose accounts and sockpuppets and please restore the tag and bring us some good substantial content to craft an article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of a notability tag, once it's been proven to be notable is no longer applies. An AfD has proven that the subject has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources, and the sources within article appear to meet this criteria whether you like it or not.

Sorry are you accusing Reissgo of being a sockpuppet? Tanbircdq (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail removed

Not RS. Please see SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

History and movement

Do not reinsert without secondary independent RS citations to establish due weight and noteworthiness of this material.

Removed text follows

• France: Monnaie honnête.
• Switzerland: Sovereign Money initiative (German: Vollgeld, French: Monnaie pleine, Italian: Moneta interna).

International Movement for Monetary Reform

In 2014, Positive Money initiated the International Movement for Monetary Reform to reunite similar organisations around the world:

• Australia: Fair Money
• Bulgaria: Чисти пари
• Croatia: Budućnost Novca
• Denmark: Gode Penge
• Finland: Economic Democracy (Talousdemokratia)
• France: Monnaie honnête.
• Greece: FEKyou.info
• Germany: Monetative
• India: Money Reforms
• Israel: שינוי מוניטרי
• Iceland: Betra Peningakerfi
• Netherlands: Ons Geld
• Ireland: Sensible Money
• Italy: Moneta Bene Comune
• Poland: Pieniądz Pozytywny
• Portugal: Boa Moeda
• Puerto Rico: Dinero Justo
• New Zealand: Positive Money
• Slovakia: Férové Peniaze
• Spain: Dinero Positivo
• South Africa: Firstsource Money
• Sweden: Positiva Pengar
• Switzerland: Sovereign Money initiative (German: Vollgeld, French: Monnaie pleine, Italian: Moneta interna). There will be a national vote on this initiative on 10 June 2018.
• United Kingdom: Positive Money

SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Template:Fr Monnaie honnête, France, official website (page visited on 23 February 2018).
2. Sovereign Money initiative, Switzerland, official website (page visited on 23 February 2018).
3. Cite error: The named reference IMMR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Template:Fr Monnaie honnête, France, official website (page visited on 23 February 2018).
5. Sovereign Money initiative, Switzerland, official website (page visited on 23 February 2018).
6. Template:Fr Objets de la votation populaire du 10 juin 2018, Federal administration of Switzerland (page visited on 23 February 2018).

Hello. Thank you for your message. What do you mean by 'secondary independent RS citations'? Is the official website of an organisation not a reference on its own members?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

The reason we need independent reliable sources is to establish that the article content is noteworthy and significant information for an encyclopedia. Please also see the link at WP:WEIGHT. You did a good service adding such references to the beginning of the article, but it's important to put the rest of the article in context by adding similar independent discussion of the organizations activities. There are help references available at this link . Thanks for your contributions. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You should not reinsert content that's been challenged by removal. On WP we don't publish "original research" that is not directly and explicitly supported by published reliable sources. I've removed your reinsertion of invalid content. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these explanations. How can you decide that something is invalid when a source is given?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Please slow down and please see these pages: SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you see so much issues on this page, why don't you fix it yourself instead of deleting content and then just talking about it? Showing how to imporve things would help new users. And please answer the question on your talk page too.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Third opinion?

Hi, someone requested a WP:third opinion on this page, I'm offering to help. FrankP (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. We have a Single Purpose Account that came here and to other articles relating to this organization on its first day and appears to be putting unsourced or irrelevant content on various articles. Seems to have quieted down now. Thanks for volunteering at 3-O. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes I see. @Adèle Fisher: just to add to what has been said about notability, although something like an organisation's website can be a source for itself, it does not itself establish the notability of that organisation. Notable organisations get talked about, referred to in newspaper articles and so on, those are the kinds of references needed. FrankP (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these informations. Specifico, could you tell me here which content that I wrote in this article was 'unsourced'?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

I've already told you and pointed it out in edit summaries. You can't use WP:PRIMARY sources, opinion pieces, blogs, content that is related to the subject only by your own deductions or connections that you see but are not explicit in the sources, and so forth. You need to read the Misplaced Pages Policies and Guidelines and edit only when you are confident you understand them. It's highly unusual for a new account to go diving in as you are with almost all your work here tending to promote this organization and its fringe POV's. If you don't work within site norms, you will sooner or later be blocked. To avoid this, please study the Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is rather overstating things. You most definitely can use primary sources in some circumstances. For example basic uncontroversial information. So I too would encourage you to read the wikipedia policies, if only to see how wrong SPECIFICO is! Reissgo (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

For your information, on 23 February 2018, Specifico nominated this article for a discussion on: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Positive Money.
As it seems to have happened without notifying interested projects and editors, I post this message here.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

Primary-sourced and blog-sourced content

An editor has reinserted primary sourced and blog sourced content here

While this may be very exciting to members of the organisation and their friends and family, there is no indication that this is encyclopedic content or that it is any more significant than the thousands of other groups who get this kind of day in the sun at Parliament. This content should be removed unless an independent secondary RS publication can be found to demonstrate its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you added the comedy sheep link. I don't remember that being discussed in parliament. Reissgo (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is significant article content, it should be easy to demonstrate its significance with secondary RS references. The narratative of Dyson's epiphany or his reading habits, without an explicit and essential connection to the subject of this article, is not encyclopedic. We could just as well recount that Margaret Thatcher got food poisoning one winter's night in 1976, descended into a week's delirium, and awoke knowing that Joan of Arc had visited her to insist she run for PM. @FrankP: SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The Grip of Death story could scarcely be more relevant. It was the reason the organisation got started in the first place. No grip of death, no Positive Money. The story has been repeated very widely. Nobody doubts its veracity. Reissgo (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record you can see Ben Dyson himself tell the story 40 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sgcWIsJVyg Reissgo (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the comment I left the new editor above -- it applies all the more to you after all your years of editing here. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to edit-warred content

Contrary to Reissgo's recent edit summary, the defect in the book-reading epiphany content has been stated here on talk as it was also stated to the now-banned collaborator sockpuppet account Adele. The onus is on editors who wish to include this and they can start by responding to the reasons I've given repeatedly here and in edit summaries. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The truth of the story is not disputed by anyone, not even you. So the remaining question is - is it significant? Well that's a matter of opinion. You say no, I (and presumably @Tanbircdq:) say yes. The opinion of a now-banned editor one way or the other has no bearing on the matter.

The story of how something got started is encyclopaedic. The Velcro article contains the story of the walk in the woods with the dog and the page on Newton contains the story of the Apple tree. This is no different. Reissgo (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly relevent content about the orgin of how the organisation was founded. I see absolutely no WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH arguments for its removal.

The content being originally added (or not) by an COI or SPA has no relevance on whether the content should be included (or not). Tanbircdq (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Velcro??? SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The velcro company got started after a walk in the woods with a dog... and wikipedia tells the story.

Everybody knows what Velcro is. The point is it's entirely irrelevant and ridiculous to introduce Velcro into this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about Velcro the company, not the fastener. The analogy is a good fit: (1) Epiphany -> (2) chain of thoughts over a period of years -> (3) start of organization. (4) Misplaced Pages has page on the organization the includes description of (1). Reissgo (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are citing a French paywalled group advocacy blog. It states that this Ben Dyson was minding his own business, read some book By Rowbotham, and then went out and founded this Positive Money group, an advocacy group where he and editor Reissgo were apparently authors or colleagues. If we look at Mr. Dyson's various bios on the web, e.g. where does he tell us that reading a single book motivated his founding Positive Money? That's quite an extraordinary claim, that this person in his extensive research (as described) would be motivated to act by a single book he read. In fact, if we look at Dyson's own words he says no such thing -- even while mentioning that book: So yes, this is an edit war to pry a misrepresentation of Dyson's personal views and history into this article. Dyson hiself makes clear that Positive Money was founded at least 4 years after he stumbled on the Rowbotham book. The edit-warred content is based on a weak source while stronger ones directly associated with Dyson fail to confirm or outright contradict it. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Here https://stanislasjourdan.fr/en/2012/02/05/interview-ben-dyson-positive-money/ is an interview with Ben Dyson. He is asked "What is the story behind Positive Money?" To which he begins his reply:

"It started when I was studying development and economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, of the university of London. I was obsessed by inflation because I could not understand why prices were rising so quickly. One day I was at the library, and I found a book called 'Grip of Death'..." Reissgo (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. So you have two problems now. First, that source is a self-published blogger-advocate who claims to be representing something Dyson told him. Not WP:RS. Second, this doesn't say what you keep trying to edit-war into the article text, namely, that Dyson had an epiphany whilst reading this book and directly went out and founded the Positive Money group. In fact it falsifies that claim, because it states that this book led the lad to a several-years long interest after which Positive Money was born. So it's like saying that Prince Charles and Lady Di heard a Petula Clark love song one day at Clarence House and it caused the birth of Prince Harry several years hence. Furthermore, this article is not Mr. Dyson's biography (where such detail might conceivably be relevant to the growth of his consciousness) but is an article about an organization with which he was (formerly?) affiliated. So for at least these 3 reasons, you should now remove it. It's bad. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

With regard the fact that the source is a blog - this is not an issue because the claim is not contentious. If the wiki page on BMW wanted to state that BMWs are the most efficient cars in the world then that would need a top top quality secondary source, but if the page wanted to sate that their head office was in Dusseldorf (or wherever) then a far lower quality source would suffice. The wiki pages on sourcing encourage editors to use common sense.

With regard the second point, Ben Dyson was not merely "affiliated" with PM, he actually founded it. Your argument about the time delay does not hold water. If any other editor supports this particular point I will address it in more detail. Reissgo (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS for nothing. Period. You need to read and understand WP policy. We have no idea whether any of this is even accurate, aside from all the other disqualifying factors. Please set aside the fan admiration and address WP editing protocols. Also, what's your personal relationship with Dyson? SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles