Talk:Filibuster Cartoons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Filibuster Cartoons, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Other content etc

I know you and JJ have clashed about the Monarchy before, but this is no place to air such disagreements. His position on Canada becoming a republic (American style is a nice political scar tactic, but it doesn't accurately illustrate JJ's position) isn't incredibly unique and isn't the raison d'etre for the site, and as such isn't notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Further, the other content section can be condensed into one small paragraph, talking about the various things on the site, aswell as pointing out the bias JJ obviously puts into his personal website. Leave it alone, Gavin. --SFont 06:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the cited essay to see that a US style of government is what he advocates for Canada. A Canadian publicly promoting this notion certainly is rather unique (unless you can prove otherwise), and this is vastly more notable than the relatively insignificant point that he appears to be a supporter of the Conservative Party (which isn't the raison d'etre for the site either). If his position on gay marriage is out of the ordinary, then by all means, add it to the article.

If you think the 'other content' section should point out J.J.'s bias, then stop removing the paragraph which speaks of the bias, and the errors caused by it.

I understand that you have a certain reverence for J.J., and your protection of him is noble, if a little pathetic, but please don't allow the rosy coloured glasses that you view J.J. through cloud the fact that the guy is not infallible. This article is about his website, and he a) advocates a US type presidential system for Canada on his website, and b) has errors within the content of his website. Don't remove these facts from the article again or you'll clearly be acting in bad faith, and committing vandalism. --gbambino 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

JJ's a friend, Gavin, but I certainly don't see him through rose coloured glasses. What I think is pathetic is your insistance on following him to a page about his works and inserting your own agenda into it. It's true JJ supports a republican system of government, but in the article you linked to he cites the United States as an example of a republic that works, he doesn't say Canada should adopt such a model word for word. Further, the other content section already pointed out JJ's bias, you didn't need to add a second reference to it. I will highlight this passage as you appear to have trouble spotting it:

"In addition to comics, the website provides other content as well, which include explanations to the comics as well as a "Guide to Canada" describing the nation from McCullough's point of view."

I know you're quite the proud Monarchist, Gavin, and I know you and JJ have rattled sabers in the past, but lay off this. You already prowl the monarchy related pages and are pretty good at getting your viewpoint across there, but I'm not going to let you dictate the terms here, especially when discussing the work of a good friend of mine. Simply removing whole edits and branding them vandalism is one of the main definitions of bad faith and isn't gonna fly over here. Sorry man. --SFont 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1) The website expresses J.J.'s wish to see Canada with a US style presidential system.

"There is a real alternative to this lunacy, and it's the presidential model of governance. President George W. Bush is the head of the United States of America, and as such is both the symbolic and functional leader of his country... The choice is clear. Canada can either grow up and become a republic, with the Prime Minister (or an elected President) as head of state, or we can continue to live in a fairy tale world with Queens and viceroys." [1]

2) The public expression of such a proposal by a Canadian is highly unusual.

3) The site contains numerous errors about the Monarchy, many driven by the author's bias against the institution.

"She also happens to be Queen of England...", "Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth...", "we have a special 'acting' Canadian Head of State that serves when the Queen is not around...", "She has almost no political power, and what little constitutional authority she does have is exercised by the Governor General, on her behalf..." "Our pilots fly in the Royal Canadian Air Force...", "In a monarchy, technically it is the monarch who has the power, and not the people..." [2], "The British Queen is Canada's legal Head of State...", "Since 1952, all Governors of Canada have been Canadian-born...", "According to the Constitution of Canada however, the Governor General holds enormous, dictatorial powers..." [3], "the country's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II of England. Canada never really made a clean break with Britain..." [4], "The fact that Canada still recognizes the Queen of England as our head of state...", "my father was forced to take an oath of loyalty to the British monarch...", "she will one day die and be replaced by a man who has quite openly stated his belief that people should not try to rise above their intended social status, and instead stay put in the position they're born into..." [5], and so on.

J.J. is entitled to his opinions, and he's entitled to fill his webpage with them, but this article here at Wikipedia is not a place for his friends to edit out all and anything they deem negative or detrimental to J.J.'s image. Balance is paramount here. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence that contests the three points above, your blatant removal of the information is vandalism, a violation of NPOV policy, and demonstration of bad faith editing. --gbambino 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly balanced right now but I did remove the "numerous factual errors" comment. We really can't say anything like that without references, and in any case, that's implied by the previous paragraph that indicates it's from his own point of view. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of errors was provided above. There is a difference between a point of view, and that which is factually wrong. --gbambino 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no third party references that meet our standards either here or in the document. There's plenty of original research on this talk page, I suppose, but that's not something we can add to the article itself. Since the sentence seems to be a bone of contention, I'm going to ask that it not be added back in to the article. The word "numerous" in particular is problematic since it's especially hard to define and support. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I'll agree with your comment about the use of "numerous", by the rest of your argument, then, the entire article is original research. There are no third party sources to back up claims such as "the comic pokes fun at the various differences between the American and Canadian political systems, criticizes fundamentalist Islam, and mocks liberalism in Canada, the United States, and other Western nations across the globe"; "The recent Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and the subsequent cartoon strip satirically depicting the affair, has greatly increased traffic to Filibuster Cartoons"; etc., though it's obvious that these statements are correct, or don't seem outrageous enough to be made up.

As the factual errors pointed out above are indeed factual errors, the point that errors exist on the site should be mentioned, or, the above quoted assertions, as well as others like them, should be removed.

What, then, is the best course of action? --gbambino 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best answer is to find reliable sources. However, the real reason I'm here, is I have WP:LIVING concerns about this article. Critiques of individuals, especially those who are not public figures, require much stronger referencing. This is true even if they are indirect. That doesn't mean we have to be hagiographical, but yes, it does put a significantly greater burden on critics than fans. I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to hear, but it's an important issue to Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation and they've made it clear this isn't to be a negotiable issue. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but your cited policy regards biographies, which this article is not. Even if it were, it fails all three of the criteria listed as being imperative to such an article:

• Verifiability - There are no sources to support 80% of the article content.
• Neutral point of view - The article's content ignores existent errors in the website to maintain a consistently positive slant.
• No original research - Similar to the comment re. verifiability, many of the comments are unfounded opinion.

Under these guidelines the article needs more intensive work. --gbambino 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline was designed for biography articles, but it's been broadened to apply to pretty much any article that contains biographical content. Technically, it's still just a guideline, but it carries more weight than many policies. As far as the article, yes, it does need a lot of work. That's why I assessed it as a Start class article when I looked over. Unfortunately, I'm only marginally familiar with the subject, so there's not much in the way of specific help I can provide. If it turns out there are no third party sources, the article may get sent to AfD. However, I suspect any such nomination would end up with a no consensus. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that policy should be enforced - to a certain extent. Articles like this one - about a relatively unknown website - will always have few resources to draw on besides the actual content of the website. Hence, it seems logical to me to include comments about the criticism of liberalism, promotion of the Conservative Party, advocacy for a presidential system of government, etc., as these are essentially proved by the content of the website itself. However, from that it would follow that the presence of errors is proved by the content of the website itself.

But, if policy, or guidelines, are to be enforced, then I suppose additional commentary will have to wait until third party sources emerge, if they ever do at all. It seems to leave the article somewhat bare, but, there doesn't seem to be much leeway in the matter. --gbambino 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody. To tell you the truth, as the creator of this article and as fan of Filibuster Cartoons in general, I honestly was never expecting this degree of disagreement as to J.J.'s specific viewpoints. Granted, I am by no means an expert of Canada, but I do believe that the recent edit I made to the article does cover some of the excellent points raised by Gbambino, Adashiel, and SFont. However, we should all calm down on the matter as having an argument on Wikipedia rarely leads to any form of consensus. RPH 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems fine to me, except for two things:

1) It's a reworded (albeit perhaps more clearly) version of what existed before, which may contravene the points of policy and guideline that Adashiel raised.

2) It glosses over the evident errors in the content of the website. I realise you tried to cover this in the statement "J.J.'s cartoons tend to present [his] ideological tilt, which has in turn raised some questions as to the... legitimacy of some of McCullough's claims." However, the errors aren't in his opinions, but in what he asserts as fact.

Perhaps to clarify further on the last point, some of the factual errors are these:

• References to the "Queen of England" or "British monarch" as head of state: There hasn't been a Queen of England since Anne gave Royal Assent to the Act of Union in 1707. Not only can a non-existent monarch not be Canada's head of state, constitutional reality (verified by a number of sources provided here at Wikipedia) shows that the Queen of Canada is a legally distinct persona from the Queen of the UK, and it is the former who is Canada's head of state, not the latter.
• References to the British Commonwealth: As the Commonwealth website makes clear, there is no such thing as the British Commonwealth.
• Assertions that in a monarchy the sovereign holds all power, not the people: In an absolute monarchy this would be the case. However, Canada is a constitutional monarchy whereby the monarch is bound by convention and oath to govern according to the laws of the country. Ultimately, authority is vested in the Crown by the will of the people, not taken from them without consent.
• The assertion that Canadian pilots fly in the Royal Canadian Air Force: The RCAF ceased to exist with the amalgamation of the Canadian Forces in 1968. There are ample sources provided here at Wikipedia to verify this as well.

That's just a sample of the errors.

So, we either acknowledge them without third party sources to affirm their existence, or, remove every claim about the website content that isn't supported by third party sources. It has to be either or - the standard cannot be applied to one side, and not the other. --gbambino 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

JJ's references to the Queen of England and such are purely rhetorical, Gavin. In his guide to Canada he has an entire speel about how she's Queen of Canada, and refers to her as such numerous other times. The British Commonwealth thing is one minor error, same with the RCAF thing. My mother, who is an RCAF veteran and ardent monarchist refers to both organizations as such routinely. Wikipedia isn't a place to point out two errors on a website.

Honest to God here, Gavin, you're getting to be quite the bitter individual, coming onto this page to knock him down a peg. As I have pointed out numerous times he does not say "Canada should adopt a US style of Republic" he cites the US as an example of a republic that works. Is that distinction so hard to make, Gavin? And RPH, I'm sorry but JJ's bias is pointed out in the other content section, and we don't need half a paragraph dedicated to speculating on JJ's views on republicanism. Based on the sources cited JJ does not believe Canada should adopt an American style anything. --SFont 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spencer, I'm certain people would appreciate it if you'd work in a less combative manner. --gbambino 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Gavin, you're the one who called me pathetic. I'm also not one to mince words, if someone's bugging me I'll say it. As long as it doesn't get in the way of fair, objective editing then I don't see a problem with it. --SFont 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I said your subversion of fact to protect J.J. was somewhat pathetic, not you as a whole. --gbambino 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Filibuster is significantly more visited than monarchist.ca. I didn't miss your arrogant dismissal of the popularity of the comment up top, and it just wouldn't be right of me not to point out that Filibuster got more unique hits for a single cartoon than your site has in non-unique hits for an entire month. --SFont 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spencer, as Adashiel pointed out above, there are guidelines to the content of articles such as this one. Mention of the site's errors are not allowed as there are no third party sources for verification. Without third party sources for many of the claims in the article, they too must be removed. I have complied with these guidelines. I suggest you do the same.

Your added comment re. the site's popularity is simply further POV. --gbambino 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to put it up on the main page, I just think it's pretty funny! And it's not really POV, it's stated fact, unless your site statistics are wrong. But I digress, have a good day, Gavin. --SFont 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nice" to see that this discussion has remained somewhat out of hand. I think that everyone needs to cool down a little bit and forget about the whole notion of popularity in this discussion. In regards to the "British Commonwealth" and the "Queen of England," I do have to disagree with Gbambino's claim that they are examples of biased POV. Both terms, while technically inaccurate (though I didn't even know that the British Commonwealth was an incorrect term until just now), they are recognized and acceptable norms amongst most North Americans (and between just about all Americans, I might add). Having statements like that doesn't necessarily equate an irrational opposition to Queen Elizabeth in particular or monarchy in general. They're just meant to be rhetorical points. However, I'll try to make this point clear in my next edit to the article. I'll think it over and try to come up with a way of combining the two sides of this matter in a way that would not leave the article lacking sufficient content. As we all know though, this could be quite difficult to do as any encyclopedic article on a parody site with hundreds of comics and dozens of editorials, it will be quite difficult to accurately and efficiently cite major and even minor points. RPH 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Both terms are "recognized and acceptable" to those who don't care, or don't know any better. While that may (unfortunately) be the majority, such circumstances do not make both terms correct, and do not justify an encyclopaedia’s acceptance of those terms as though they were. Wikipedia should offer the facts to clear up confusion, rather than subvert facts to support misconceptions.

While I have a better understanding of J.J.'s motives than most, and will continue to hold my opinion that he purposefully uses terms like "Queen of England" and "British Monarchy" in regards to Canada to undermine the Canadian Crown, I've conceded that to say so in this article was expressing my own POV. However, there is no POV behind the point that calling the Queen of Canada the Queen of England, saying Canada is under the British Monarchy, etc., is factually wrong, regardless of the motive (if any) behind the inclusion of these assertions. These errors exist, and they are numerous enough to be acknowledged here.

At Monarchy in Canada a website was included as a reference. However, it too contained errors, and it was deemed necessary to make this clear to Wikipedia readers. As it states:

The official website of the Department of Canadian Heritage "Canadian Monarchy" section provides a list of Royal Family members.

The list has not been updated to take account of the deaths of Princess Margaret (2002), Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (2004) and Angus Ogilvy (2004); or the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles (2005) nor does it include the grandchildren of the Queen.

Similarly, at this article, numerous links are provided to the guide, articles, and essays of McCullough, but without clarification that these sites contains factual errors. Lacking any acknowledgement of this, Wikipedia appears to be endorsing the errors that McCullough puts forward as fact as actual fact. A simple mention that the site contains errors regarding the Monarchy will clear this up, as a similar mention did for the errors within Canadian Heritage's website.

How this is worded is what will take some diplomacy. --gbambino 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've reached a pretty good point here dude. It describes what Filibuster is, the contents of the site etc. Gavin seems cool with it and I see no further need to tinker with anything else. I think we should just chill and move on. --SFont 10:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gbambino grudge

I'm really finding gbamino's edits to this page ridiculous. It's clear he's not interested in the article other than to quench his thirst for blood over JJ's less than enthusiastic interpretations of the monarchy. I can only imagine he's making changes because of some personal vendetta. The edits would be understandable if the site was a serious discussion on the Monarchy, but this is a cartoon site written in an informal style. "British Commonwealth" while not the technical term is the most widely recognized term used by the vast majority of people, including members of parliament even. "Queen of England", again while not the technical term for Canada's Head of State, is a widely recognized way of describing Canada's English resident Head of State. I find this constant re-editing by a single user to be nothing less than pendantic and childish. W00p

Fistly: new discussions go at the bottom of the talk page.

Secondly: that I have a grudge is merely your personal opinion. What you can't dispute is that the essays are not "informal" or "satirical", and they contain errors. The latter is all the paragraph in question states, without bias or further comment. "Widely recognized" does not equal accurate, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a John McCullough shrine. --gbambino 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for proving my point about being pedantic.

Secondly, if someone wrote down in a wikipedia article that the correct term for the Commonwealth that Canada, UK etc.. belong to is "the British Commonwealth" then that would deserve editing. However, if someone who authors a cartoon site mentions it once in his own non-encyclopedia article within a volume of other material, an editor for an encyclopedia wouldn't be expected to take his own personal obessession and punctiliosly make reference to it in a small entry about a topic that has nothing to do with it. W00p 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Until you can provide evidence to contradict the claim that there are errors in the essays then you have no argument against the inclusion of that fact. Errors within outside websites are indeed noted elsewhere on Wikipedia. As the text was composed through consensus earlier (as the above discussion makes clear), currently the only personal obsession at work here is your own drive to suppress whatever might threaten the bubble of infallibility you've built around your hero J.J. McCullough. --gbambino 19:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)