Talk:AJ6

Criticism section - removal and replacement
Robsassy has twice removed this section, claiming that it is "totally irrelevant" and "wholly inappropriate and unjustified, considering that no other youth movement has one". On both occasions, my reasoning in restoring the content was roughly as follows: Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy, which essentially states that all notable opinions on a given subject should be mentioned in the relevant article. Now, arguably AJ6 itself does not meet Wikipedia's notability criterion for the subject of an article, namely that it should have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". But if the article is to exist at all, then certainly the criticism to which the organization has been subject is significant enough not to be considered "irrelevant" and merits a mention per the NPOV policy. If the problem is that other organizations lack such a section in their articles, then the solution is to provide one (where appropriate) for those articles, not to remove it from this one.

Now, I recognize that there is some conflict of interest here as both Robsassy and I have been directly involved with AJ6, and if the situation continues I'll probably put in a request for comment if someone else doesn't first, so that an independent third party can review things. I also recognize that the last edit made by Robsassy was in May of last year, so the situation may not continue after all. But in case it does, I wanted to provide an explanation for my actions and a forum for discussion rather than potentially suffer a drawn-out edit war in silence.

All constructive comments appreciated. Robin S (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Criticism is fine, but surley it should be substantiated with ciatations rather than just speculation and unfounded claims. Perhaps a reason for Robsassy removing the section was that it lacked any evidence? Where have these claims come from?! Are you making them Robin S? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.148.42 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Article is being regularly vandalised by the addition of a long unsourced passage claiming that the organisation was involved in mass systematic sexual abuse. This is false, libellous of the relatively small number of identifiable former leaders of the group, and - of course - completely made up and therefore unsourced. I am reverting the edit for the 5th or 6th time but if this continues then the page may need protection. Declaration of interest: I was a senior worker for the organisation at the time the anonymous wiki editor is referring to. Ariehkovler (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I put it on my watchlist, and will protect it if multiple anons continue to add that libelous, unsourced junk. For such allegations one would need to 1) have an unimpeachably reliable source -- like a major newspaper, and rigorously cite each bit -- and 2) write in an encyclopedic, neutral manner.  (If the posting party is a single anon a block may suffice.) Antandrus  (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm pretty sure it's one person but they seem to be on a dynamic IP Ariehkovler (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on AJ6. 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/20060325231134/http://www.aj6.org:80/ to http://www.aj6.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)