Talk:Annie Machon

Neutrality tag
Someone apparently feels this document suffers from a lack of neutrality. The message at the top of the article saying so cannot be removed until the dispute is resolved.
 * The problem here is that no-one has actually formulated what parts of the article are actually causing the 'lack of neutrality' thereby making it impossible to fix it. So to whomever made the neutrality complaint; please use this talk page to clarify the nature of your complaint and be specific. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenkamphuis (talk • contribs) 10:49, 25 October 2011
 * The "neutrality dispute" is now nearly two years old. In the absence of any input, can we now regard the dispute as settled? Biscuittin (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there have been any denials of Machon's allegations, we can certainly add them. However, there may not have been any denials because security services normally make no comment on allegations. Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cryptoparty-eu After over three years of no response or any clarification on what part of the article is causing the 'lack of neutrality' I'd say we're done with this. If any person want to come forward with a specific complaint we can re-open the discussion.
 * The NPOV tag has been on this article for at least eight years (!), nobody has come forward to say why they placed it, requests have been made for clarification. I'm removing it (as an unbiased observer). The relevant guidance is "strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed". JohnHarris (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Annie Machon. 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/20111227015651/http://www.anniemachon.com:80/annie_machon/public-speaking-experienc.html to http://www.anniemachon.com/annie_machon/public-speaking-experienc.html

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) 00:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement
Why, until this weekend, was there no mention of her involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement? And why does it only now say an article "connected" her toit, when the quote given and the article both make it clear she was a believer? 2A01:4B00:8750:DA00:31FD:6C7:36D0:29B8 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to your first question, and I don't really think it's very important to answer. As for the second one, "connected" is just as good as indicating that she is a believer, is it not? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

On this topic, the article refers to an article from The New Statesman, written by Brendan O'Neill in 2006, which in my opinion, is selectively quoting, as further down the source article O'Neill himself mentions Machon was 'uncomfortable' with some of Shayler's opinions regarding this topic. The WP:BLP policy mentions: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and a little further the same policy mentions: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I feel that Machon being labelled as a 'vocal 9/11 truther' based only on a single (heavily opinionised) article from 2006, as if that is the defining characteristic of her work, is contentious. Aphotick (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that an opinion piece is a bad source, especially for contentious labels in a BLP. However, this seems to be used now for the interview of the topic of this article, rather than to label her? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Media activism
Why is the body of her work over the last 15 years around media freedoms, privacy, human rights, the war on drugs, whistleblowers and the war on terror being consistently removed? Aphotick (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to be there in the current version. Which edits are you disputing? The content at the moment around these issues is completely reliant on primary sources and one or two very weak secondary sources. Can we include any independent, secondary coverage showing this is noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate citations
@Revirvlkodlaku The "inexplicably deleted reference" was cited twice in a row, so I deleted one of them. Theres no need to have two separate references to the same article especially at the end of the same sentence. There was literally nothing between the identical references. Softlemonades (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for explaining. I agree with you that there's no need to have two separate references to the same article, but this is why you should be leaving an edit summary, so other editors know what you've done and don't waste time trying to fix your work. Thanks. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Youre right, I shouldnt have assumed Softlemonades (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and by the way, the two identical references were side by side, something I should have noticed instead of replacing the one you removed 🤣 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Douma chemical attack
While it's interesting that Machon espouses conspiracy theories, the fact of her doing so on this particular issue has completely evaded RSes - which all BLPs are required by policy to be based in. I looked and couldn't find a single RS that had noted this particular one - just a deprecated source. And a bunch of blog-level sources. We can't use a deprecated source as the sole source for a controversial claim, that's just a straight up violation of WP:BLP - which is hard policy. Unless an actual independent third-party RS can be found for Machon espousing the theory, this needs to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Its not a controversial claim that she said it. It would be a controversial claim that its true, but thats not whats happening here. Its also the original source, since its where she gave the interview and no reliable source would consider her relevant or the conspiracy theory worth mentioning. It falls into acceptable uses of deprecated sources, especially with the inline citation Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and, the issue needs to be resolved here first, not in the article itself. Please stop reverting each other until you have reached agreement. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, and neither of us has touched the article since it came to Talk. Just waiting for reply, and thought we could ask for a Third opinion if we couldnt resolve it and no one else gave an opinion on the Talk page. I obviously think this is one of the exceptions, but its RT on a page that barely passes GNG, Im not gonna fight it. Unless I need to do a better job explaining it or we need a third opinion to break a deadlock or whatever, this is as far as Im gonna argue for including stuff from RT for obvious reasons. Softlemonades (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * However, if it hasn't been noted anywhere at all - and it hasn't - then it shouldn't be in this article. You're putting it in because it's a controversial claim and you want the world to know about it. Fine, but unless you can find an RS that this is even worth noting, it's just her saying something dumb in a deprecated source, and we don't care. At best it would be equivalent to a blog post. WP:BLP says don't do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isnt soapbox and its not scandal if thats what you mean. Its relevant to who she is and what she does.
 * It wouldnt fall under "self-published sources" and if it did itd be closer to BLPSELFPUB, wouldnt it?
 * Here she seems to be saying the same basic thing on video, from some random uploader if that makes any difference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyeL1tNSuOo
 * Aside from all that, the reason RT was deprecated was its an "unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information" and "a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." And thats part of the context here, that its a conspiracy theory based on or building propaganda and disnformation. Context readers can get from the wikilink in the inline citation
 * The reason BLP would have it taken out is, is it maybe libel to say she said it? Is it unverifiable? I think no for both
 * Thats my thinking Softlemonades (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If after reading that you dont think theres anything left to talk about, still disagree and dont see a point in getting a third opinion, I wont object to removing it Softlemonades (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you've greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing here, particularly on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree but Ill self revert Softlemonades (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a clear position on the issue, but I'll just point out that, it is not collegial to accuse other editors of bad faith or other motives that you only speculate about. , thank you for your gracious conduct. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)