Talk:Independent Green Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have searched the two links which are the subject of an edit war between Warofdreams and an anonymous individual. I cannot find any reference to the party Independent Green Voice in the second and third links and agree they should be removed, and have done so. The section about holocaust revisionism belongs in an article about the named individual, should anyone care to create one. I do not think articles about political parties should detail the individual circumstances or beliefs of every single member. Given that Warofdreams is by his own profile a strong supporter of left-wing politics and Irish republicanism I do not find him a credible independent contributor to this debate. E Pluribus Unum 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC) E_Pluribus_Unum

I have no strong opinion on Irish republicanism, although that seems irrelevant here anyway. If you look through my contributions, you will note that I strive to work on an NPOV basis, and do not appreciate statements that I am not a "credible" contributor. I note that this is your first edit, and would invite you to engage in debate, rather than launching attacks on other contributors. Regarding the point in dispute, McConnachie is rather more than just "a member"; he is the party's leader, treasurer, nominating officer, only candidate to date, and source of the party's only income [1]. As a result, his personal politics are essentially those of the party, and are of the greatest relevance to this article. Warofdreams talk 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost my password and had to create a new account!! Let's be honest, you are not entirely credible as a neutral witness. For example, you noted that the subject of the article sold right-wing literature. When it was pointed out that left-wing literature was also sold, you deleted the entire entry. I cannot see any evidence that the subject has writen about the holocaust 'extensively'. That one article 'For Fear of the Smear' was about how Members of the European Parliament were forced into supporting a declaration that went against their own principles, because it was linked to the issue of the holocaust. It did not 'revise' the holocaust in any way!

Given the fact that this battle is not going to be won by anyone but you I hope you will agree to my reversion to the original article before this edit war, as your current version is now just a little too over-the-top. EPluribusUnum 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the prominence of the McConnachie statement, so I've moved it down the article and shortened it a little. However, I've reinstated the references, as I assume you're not objecting to them. Warofdreams talk 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Has he written about holocaust revisionism 'extensively'? The article you link to is an article about how UKIP Members of the European Parliament, who want to leave the EU, actually voted for a motion in the European Parliament calling for further integration after the subject was linked to that of the holocaust. A perfectly good observation, if a little controversial, but nothing to do with holocaust 'revisionism'. Therefore the final few words should be removed unless you can link to a number of other articles on the IGV website about holocaust revisionism.

If you want to link to the 'Fear of the Smear' article, why not also link to a number of the other articles on the website, and point out that McConnachie has written on such subjects as direct democracy, environmentalism, localism, globalism, EU affairs and British politics. I still think you are a biased author as you were happy to include a sentence stating that McConnachie sold 'right-wing literature' but removed the entire paragraph when it was pointed out that he sold 'left-wing literature' also. EPluribusUnum

Have you read the article?

"To take the first point, "revisionist views and denial of the Holocaust". What is a "revisionist view"? And what is "denial of the Holocaust"? These are smear phrases to attack what, for most people, is more properly described as normal historical enquiry. Certainly there is no reason to "reject and condemn" such historical enquiry unless one has a hidden agenda to ban it!"

This clearly does have something to do with McConnachie's attitudes to the Holocaust. McConnachie's writings on other topics may well merit a mention in the article, but that in no way reduces the relevance of this point. Regarding the literature, I did not add the note about literature and removed it upon having considered its possible relevance. I did not check the relevance until it became a bone of contention, but I agree that it was also inappropriate in its initial form, as it implied that McConnachie sympathised with Chesterton without providing any evidence. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, your cute google link also includes references to the word 'holocaust' that have nothing to do with denial. We could equally include all searches to 'democracy' on McConnachie's website in the article, which is obviously a much greater interest of him and of more relevance. Other mainstream journalists have pointed out that 'holocaust revisonism' should not be a crime. Does this warrant a mention on all their pages? Should every person with a Wikipedia entry have a sentence stating whether they believe holocaust revisonism should be a crime? Also, it is possible to make comments on the talk page and not make stupid changes to the article.

EPluribusUnum

I think my new changes are fair - let's leave it at that, shall we?

EPluribusUnum

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Independent Green Voice 1.gif

Image:Independent Green Voice 1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)