Talk:John McTernan

Deletions

Can anyone explain to me why the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times, Progress Online etc are being questioned as "reliable sources"? Anna Lertreader (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The material about McTernan's political views (sourced to the above) and responses to them seem reasonable to me. The section about "McTernan Predicts" looks like an attack piece to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Looks like it to me" is neither factual nor consensual. It's your opinion. Please stop edit-warring pending resolution. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Has the alleged poor quality of McTernan's predictions been discussed in any reliable sources? If not, why are you creating a section about it? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Alleged"? Kindly demonstrate which are in dispute, and identify which words or phrases in the section are not neutrally worded. These are facts. I have already modified the text for better neutrality. If McTernan is notable then things for which he is notable - including the fact that a social-media hashtag with thousands of entries exists to mock the quality of his predictions - are legitimate content. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Just because you can source predictions of his that went wrong, does not mean that he is bad/terrible at making predictions. A social media thing is not a reliable source. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because he's always wrong at predicting doesn't mean he's bad at it? Um, right. Tell you what, find me some he's got right for balance. Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So, no examples, then? And no sign of consensus support for your view either. These remain factual statements, and it remains factual that McTernan's Jonah touch has been widely remarked upon. They are not personal comments about the subject's private life and therefore do not breach BLP. They concern solely his professional work, and it is fair to note his history as an "expert" analyst. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There's the whiff of Corbyn sock puppet about you, "Anna" Jamespo (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that constructive and worthwhile contribution. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"McTernan's Jonah touch has been widely remarked upon" -- where? By whom? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Link at the beginning of the section features hundreds if not thousands of examples.Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The "link at the beginning of the section" is a Twitter hashtag, for goodness' sake. WP:SPS and WP:RS apply. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So? It satisfies "widely remarked upon". It does not profess to constitute an academic assessment. The predictions and the outcomes are the reliably-sourced facts. I'm happy to remove the line about "widely remarked" if it'll stop you bleating. But why are you instantly edit-warring rather than attempting to achieve consensus support for the removal of a section of properly-sourced and unquestioned facts? Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You have used synthesis, as Jmorrison230582 has said, to make a series of non-neutral assertion. As you will find from the policy documents, this is inadmissible. By all means, find a reliable source critical of McTernan. As it is you could report the reversions by myself and others on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, but I doubt you would find any support there. Philip Cross (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised on the AN/I page. Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a fairly bizarre argument. McTernan is alleged to be a political expert, yet as demonstrated in the links (which keep getting deleted), he has gotten pretty much every major call of the last few years completely wrong. That's surely significant? Perhaps the wording of the section could be toned down, but the thrust of it is legitimate criticism. 32.58.234.250 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, "legitimate criticism" is solely dependent on finding good and admissible third-party sources which express an opinion. If they are absent, such an argument cannot be made, however valid they might seem to an editor. Philip Cross (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm dismayed at the unconstructive and unhelpful attitude displayed by some experienced editors here. A protracted edit war could have been avoided with positive engagement rather than an officious and authoritarian approach.

The material dispute here is easily solved. The contentious aspect triggering WP:SYNTH is the conclusion about inaccuracy. Taking out that line, while leaving the legitimately-sourced facts, removes the problem. The section is now a wholly neutral list of relevant information - the subject is a reputed expert and his expertise or otherwise is clearly a valid topic of record - which can be added to with other predictions by the subject, including those which have turned out to be accurate.

This has the added boon of making edit the preserve of those with actual knowledge of the subject of the entry, rather than those who - at some future point - may or may not be pursuing personal agendas with other editors rather than acting in accordance with the interests and goals of Wikipedia.

I have restored and amended the section accordingly. I trust this will settle the issue, and that any further disputes will be resolved by discussion rather than edict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.49.137 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The reasons why this is an unacceptable section have been explained many times already. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does not matter if you think this is sustainable. The issue has to have been raised by someone writing for a reliable source. Reverted as before. Philip Cross (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The section was not a "a wholly neutral list of relevant information". It is list of information that has been gathered by you in an attempt to lead the reader to a particular conclusion. For all the reader knows, it could be a highly selective list of cherry-picked examples designed to mislead. This is why Wikipedia demands that you do not attempt to construct a position from multiple sources, but that you find a reliable source that has already made the point. This is most particularly the case with content that criticises people. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Having been asked to look at this page I'm finding the argument by those opposed to the section hard to follow. The facts are certainly properly sourced. Is the problem a conclusion breaching WP:SYNTH (in which case the last deletion would be clearly unjust), or is it simply that the conclusion is not supported by a reliable source? It can't be both because they conflict, but both have been cited by opponents. GeorgeLL V2 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Has John McTernan ever been a member of the Labour Party?

Has John McTernan ever been a member of the Labour Party?

If he is not now and never has been is this worth being said in the article?

Many Labour Party members want him purged for his extreme abuse, but if he is not a member, simply a paid consultant, he cannot be purged.

31.51.227.8 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeated politically-motivated censorship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "Predictions" section of this entry is now supported by links to numerous articles from Wings Over Scotland to indicate notability. Wings Over Scotland meets the "reliable source" criteria required by Wikipedia. In particular, it is noted that

"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

Wings Over Scotland's recording of McTernan's predictions is fully backed by original sources and therefore reliable in context despite its political bias.

The section has dealt with every criticism made of it, yet is repeatedly and instantly removed and the editor sanctioned. The political bias is plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Lertreader (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's removed - and it will continue to be removed - because it's a BLP violation that's mostly sourced to unreliable sources such as YouTube, Twitter, blogs and Wikipedia. The fact there might be one or two reliable sources in amongst the dozens of unreliable ones is irrelevant. There is no bias here - indeed, I'd never even heard of John McTernan until the issue was raised at an admin's noticeboard the last time you did this. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation. I have demonstrated that Wings Over Scotland is a reliable source meeting Wikipedia's stated criteria for such. Explain why it is not. You saying "it's a blog" is not an argument, because Wiki has no prohibition against blogs and the site's bias is clearly noted. Twitter chatter in general may not be a legitimate source, but *John McTernan's Twitter feed* is an obviously valid source for *John McTernan's comments*.

I don't understand what you mean by Wikipedia being used as a source. Do you mean for election results etc? That seems an absurd gripe, but I'll happily link to other sources of election results if that's your problem.

Every time there's a complaint about the entry I amend it to address the complaint, only for a new complaint to be fabricated and bans to be applied without discussion, debate or consensus. Last time I was accused - and instantly found guilty - of an "IP edit", and I haven't the remotest clue what one of those even is.

For example - the last time the section was deleted it was noted that "Wikipedia demands that you do not attempt to construct a position from multiple sources, but that you find a reliable source that has already made the point". That has been done. Numerous articles on Wings Over Scotland have been cited as the primary source for the point that McTernan is a serially-wrong analyst, and it IS a reliable source under Wiki rules. Once again, explain why it is not. It is a very widely-read site considered sufficiently notable to have its own Wiki entry. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So, once again it looks like we get an instant kneejerk deletion that plainly took no account of substantial changes to the section, but a simple request to explain why a seemingly-valid source is in fact invalid meets with deaf ears and tumbleweed. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no "new complaint being fabricated", there's simply the fact you're making the same error as you did before. I have to ask, though; why are you so interested in making McTernan's article as negative as possible? Is there a conflict of interest going on here? Because I find it unlikely that a random editor should focus so obviously on one person. WP:NOTHERE applies here, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A simple glance at the history and this page clearly shows that the complaint changes every time it's addressed. But my interest is in an entry that accurately reflects McTernan's career, and if a professional analyst is consistently wrong and mocked for it that's a notable point.

But more to the point, you still can't tell me why Wings Over Scotland isn't a reliable source, presumably because if you concede that it is then your entire argument collapses. You also deleted the section literally within seconds of it being added, even though it was substantively different in a key area, something you can't possibly have checked first. So I'm not very interested in you throwing mud about motivations. But for the record, I dislike people throwing their weight around just because others don't have months to devote to learning Wiki's arcane and complicated processes. Why can't you make your case? I was told the section wasn't valid because another source hadn't made the observation. So I provided one that was valid under Wiki rules, and you instantly deleted it again anyway, without checking, and started threatening me with banning even though I've consistently tried to have a reasoned debate about it. Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You've never tried to have a reasoned debate about it, you've just tried to repeatedly insert badly sourced BLP violations into the article. Wings Over Scotland is a blog, and thus unreliable. Your other sources are unreliable too (Twitter, Youtube, Soundcloud, Wikipedia etc). Either source your additions per Wikipedia policies or don't add them. Read WP:RS and WP:BLP and then come back when you've actually understood them. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion-based assertion is not an argument. *Blogs are not prohibited as reliable sources*, including those which are not neutral, as I've noted above. All of its claims are sourced. The site is known for fact-checking and repeatedly nominated for awards. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear, I'll make it so - Negative claims agsinst living people must be sourced - it doesn't matter whether they're true or false, if they're derogatory they must have reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

And? Which claims are not sourced? You can't possibly be telling me that John McTernan's own tweets are not a reliable source for John McTernan's opinions, can you? Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

However popular it is, the chances of Wings Over Scotland (a website whose editorial content is the opinions of a single person and which is associated with an opposite political viewpoint to McTernan's) being accepted as a reliable source is zero. McTernan's own tweets are less problematic, except that they're being used in a section that is otherwise not reliably sourced and is purely an attack on the article subject. I bet that I could create a section like that for any political commentator - of course they're going to predict things and of course some of those things will be wrong. Picking and choosing McTernan's failed predictions is simply synthesis, and we don't do that. By the way, you still haven't answered the question - why is your apparent sole purpose here to try to make McTernan's article as critical as possible? Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand fully why YOU don't want to accept it. What I asked you was in what way it was disqualified under Wikipedia rules. (It's not the work of a single person, it has over 80 named contributors including current and former Members of Parliament.) You appear under the impression that you are the sole arbiter and are not obliged to follow Wiki's stated rules.

And I answered your (leading and inaccurate) question - it's by no means my only purpose here, nor the only subject I've contributed to. I've attempted to make a single factual and sourced addition to this entry and been repeatedly abused and sanctioned by people unable to explain why they insist on deleting it, and why they don't have to consider the views expressed on this page by other editors. I didn't "pick and choose" the predictions, a popular political commentary site did, and by the rules that makes it legitimate to note. But by all means balance them with predictions McTernan got right, if you can find any. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"People unable to explain why they insist on deleting it"? Have you actually read anything here? I'll explain again, since you obviously haven't read WP:RS like I suggested above. It doesn't matter how many contributors Wings Over Scotland has when every single one of your links to it is to partisan opinion piece blog posts by its owner Stuart Campbell. Surely that's clear? Do you think Campbell would write blog posts about things that McTernan's got right? Of course he wouldn't, the purpose of his blog posts are to ridicule someone he disagrees politically with. So please don't accuse me of not following policy when the only issue here is that you don't agree with said policy. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Over and over we go, with you still unable to explain why UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S RULES Wings Over Scotland is not a reliable source. It is. Reliable sources are EXPLICITLY NOT REQUIRED TO BE NEUTRAL. (Nor is a list of sourced, unarguable facts an "opinion piece". It is not "opinion" that McTernan has said these things, and it is not "opinion" that they were wrong. They are matters of recorded, sourced, hard fact. Election results are not opinions.)

Two simple issues are key here: one, are the facts true? Yes they are, and verifiably sourced. A YouTube video of McTernan saying something on a BBC TV programme proves he said it. You don't get to say "YouTube is invalid" in that context - a video is a video. Two, has McTernan's record of prediction inaccuracy been reported by a reliable source to make it valid for inclusion? Yes, under Wiki terms it has. Notability and verifiability have both been satisfied. You are free to edit the section to reflect his accurate predictions if you can satisfy those same two rules - find some and find a source talking about them. You are NOT free to arbitrarily delete the section on a personal whim that you can't support with any Wikipedia rules. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's now been a week since I asked for justification of Wings Over Scotland being rejected out-of-hand on a single editor's whim despite the fact that it does not breach any Wiki rules about sources, particularly citing this passage from WP:RS:

"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

As yet there has been no answer. WOS is not neutral, that is not under dispute. But as we've just seen that also DOES NOT bar it from being cited as a reliable source, and it clearly IS reliable in this context. All of its claims - what John McTernan predicted, and what the actual outcomes were - are properly sourced and are not disputed. It is not disputed that he asserted Hillary Clinton would win the US election, and it is not disputed that she did not win it, etc. So unless you can actually provide a reason under Wiki rules disqualifying Wings Over Scotland as a source, I expect to see the section restored. Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's try to do this without resorting to arcane wikilaws.

The first section of his political career, Blair_and_Scottish_Labour, has four short paras, two of which are negative. The second section, Work_in_Australia, has three (one is just a sentence), the largest of which is negative. The third, Later_career, where his "predictions" belong if anywhere, is relatively neutral and brief. A para is given to his opposition to Corbyn ahead of the leadership election. The section you want added (quoted below for ease of reference) is entirely negative bar the last sentence which fuctions as a punchline, and almost as long as the rest of his biography put together.

Predictions

McTernan regularly makes predictions about political events in his role as media commentator and analyst. The tendency of these predictions to be consistently and often spectacularly wrong has been highlighted repeatedly by the prominent pro-Scottish-independence blog Wings Over Scotland.

Examples include:

Predicting in February 2011 that Scottish Labour would win "a convincing victory" in that year's Scottish election (the SNP in fact won a landslide majority three months later).

Predicting in January 2014 that "the Scottish Tories could be the big winners from the independence referendum". At the subsequent UK general election the Scottish Conservatives won only 14.9% of the vote, the lowest share in their history

Predicting in March 2014 that the Conservative Party would lose the following year's UK general election (they won an absolute majority, beating Labour by almost 100 seats), but that they would double, treble or quadruple their seats in Scotland (they remained at one), and that Scottish Labour would be "the big winners" (they suffered a catastrophic defeat)

Predicting in October 2014 that Labour would win the forthcoming UK general election in Scotland, and that it was NOT "facing a wipeout. It lost 40 of its 41 seats to the SNP

Predicting in November 2014 that "Jim Murphy will win in Scotland and Jim will sort Scotland out" Murphy took Labour's vote share from 42% at the previous election to just 24%

Predicting in July 2015 that Jeremy Corbyn would not win the Labour Party leadership. Corbyn won with almost 60% of the vote, a greater share than even Tony Blair had achieved

Predicting in April 2016 that 45% support was "the high water mark of independence". By June of that year four separate polls had put backing as high as 59%

Predicting in June 2016, on the evening of the EU referendum, that "in less than four hours time London and Scotland will have saved the UK", meaning a Remain win. Leave won by 52% to 48%.

Predicting throughout 2016 that Hillary Clinton would win the US Presidential election. The election was won by Donald Trump

After its repeated mockery of his predictive skills, McTernan had publicly challenged Wings Over Scotland to a $100 wager on the outcome of the Presidential election. When he lost, he failed to pay up

McTernan continues to appear on TV and radio regularly as an expert analyst, particularly for the BBC.

References

Ignoring any questions of reliability (though WOS is reliable in my opinion) it is rather undue to say the least. Imagine if half of Corbyn's bio was cobbled together from McTernan pieces.

Ideally, negative statements should be supported by a couple of sources, one of which should be independent. At the moment we seem to have one pundit/analyst against another. I'm assuming that there is a WOS piece where these predictions are featured, we don't need to show them all here, an interested reader can follow the links. If there is another, neutral, source dealing with his propensity for inaccurate prognostications, then I would support a single sentence along the lines of (very roughly for an example) McTernan continues to appear on TV and radio regularly as an expert analyst, particularly for the BBC. In his role as media commentator and analyst, he regularly makes predictions about political events, which have often transpired to be wrong. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"I'm assuming that there is a WOS piece where these predictions are featured". There are four of them, all linked in the opening paragraph of the section. I'd be quite happy with the section comprising your suggested sentence "In his role as media commentator and analyst, he regularly makes predictions about political events, which have often transpired to be wrong", without the rest of the text, if it was appended with those four links as references. (Although the terms "very often" or "almost always" would be more accurate. I believe his recorded accuracy rate is something like one out of 13. A blind monkey picking cards at random would get six or seven, so he's a lot less reliable as an analyst than tossing a coin would be.) In fact, the 4th link alone would probably suffice, since as far as I can tell it contains everything that's in the other ones. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh yes, agreed, if there was a neutral source there wouldn't be a problem. But just using WOS can't fly; whilst it might bw reliable in reporting facts, it's still a blog written by someone who doesn't like McTernan and cherry-picks his wrong predictions (which is effectively synthesis). We need a neutral, reliable source which makes direct reference to McTernan's supposed inability to make correct predictions. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki is very clear that we DON'T need a neutral source. It's made absolutely plain in WP:RS that a non-neutral one is acceptable if its facts are accurate and verifiable, which these are. As for your assertion that WOS has "cherry-picked" them, in terms of this debate it's incumbent on you to prove that by providing examples of predictions McTernan's got right. If none, or almost none, exist, then it's NOT cherry-picking, it's an accurate and fair summary of his track record whether the source is neutral or not. And as far as I can see, and which you haven't contested with a shred of evidence, that is the case. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of further objections, have inserted a new version along the lines of that suggested by HillbillyHoliday. Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That is obviously PoV and I agree with its removal. -- Alarics (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the bit where HillbillyHoliday said " If there is another, neutral, source dealing with his propensity for inaccurate prognostications, then I would support a single sentence ..." passed you by. Still, that's moot now. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The section is now supported by a reference from the Scottish Sun. I look forward to some inventive new excuse ("if there was a neutral source there wouldn't be a problem") being found to delete it and ban me again. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• There still isn't a neutral source reporting on McTernan's alleged repeated failure of predictions. It does, however, mention one particular event, so I have kept that in the article. I don't see any reason to block you again as you are least trying to source this properly. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted to NPOV. The Sun is not a serious or reliable newspaper. Furthermore, this is a obviously written with a POV agenda, and the matter is clearly a trifling one. -- Alarics (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely hilarious. The Sun is of COURSE a legitimate newspaper, the best-selling in the country, and it DOES mention his track record: "The bet was agreed in several tweets in July after the Wings Over Scotland website chief ribbed his rival **for backing losers**". It's explicitly stated as the reason for the bet and therefore the story. You people are an utter joke and your bias is comically transparent. I'm only amazed not to have been banned again, but I'm sure it won't be long now. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, since this is of course all being done in a fair and neutral manner in accordance with good faith, I'd love to know why there was also a kneejerk deletion of the section about McTernan joining Penn Schoen Berland, which was sourced and accurate and not controversial in the slightest. Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly because of WP:USEPRIMARY. But Penn Schoen Berland is itself very notable, so you should be able to find plenty of alternative sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. Sorry to interrupt all the hilarity but, although as you say The Sun is indeed "the best-selling in the country", at Wikipedia it's generally regarded as being a worthless tabloid comic that should be avoided at all costs. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't good enough. The comment by Black Kite (talk) that "Of course, you still haven't sourced McTernan's "repeated failures" because both sources merely quote Campbell" is flatly untrue. Neither of the quotes in the section are from Campbell, both are the comments of the two newspapers involved. As for removing most of the entry, it is meaningless to say "there was controversy" unless the evidence supporting it can be produced and verified, which it can't be from either newspaper article, which contain no links.

Much as you're both desperate to try to protect McTernan from the evidence of his track record, it is relevant and indeed indispensable to the section, which means the fully-sourced Wings articles which feature it have to stay. Because without it the story doesn't happen at all, and Wikipedia users are left in the dark. (And I'm STILL, after all this time, awaiting anything supporting the assertion that Wings Over Scotland is not a reliable source.)

The reference to WP: UNDUE is completely bogus for that reason. It's two paragraphs and the first, at a minimum, is absolutely necessary. And once again, deleting without discussion on this page is exactly the sort of edit warring I, alone, get banned for. I wish the hypocrisy came as a surprise. Anna Lertreader (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Currently requesting further comment at the BLP Noticeboard. Link --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Elephant in the room first of all, yes I haven't contributed in a few years, but there hasn't been much I could add. This one interested me. Firstly there is the matter of relevance. if I might quote the Telegraph bio for it's columnist John McTernan John McTernan is a political strategist commentator and who has advised politicians in Britain and Australia on welfare, pensions, defence, health, education, housing, urban policy, and civil service reform. He was Prime Minister Tony Blair's political secretary and Prime Minister Julia Gillard's director of communications. . His own bio places his commentary and advice at the heart of the service he provides, his very career.Therefore if there is strong evidence that this is not the case then this should be included. As to sources. The conduit is Wings over Scotland, but he provides sources for each. In some cases these sources were dismissed as "YouTube" in this talk, but if you have the individual using their own words where YouTube is merely the media of recording them, then dismissing them as merely "YouTube" is wrong.

As to neutrality. Wings is not neutral. However, as others have said that kind of neutrality is not required. You will not find a politically neutral point of view on him given his career. To find a dispassionate view of the subject, I do not believe anyone has yet funded an academic study of Mr McTernan that you could cite. To provide evidence of cherry picking then if more SIGNIFICANT predictions within his career's sphere of competence were provided where he had called it correctly rather than those that had found he had not then that would be a counterargument to that, so far it is not.

Lastly. Is his prediction record a CULTURAL phenomenon? Outside of his career directly then yes, it is now part of the culture in which he operates, the perception of his fallibility is a thing in and of itself and has relevance to the man.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the BLP Noticeboard discussion. Hurcheon (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What came out of it was that most people commenting supported the inclusion of the material, were immediately traduced as being "suspicious" and their arguments ignored, and none of the key questions put to those who are against inclusion were answered. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So, where now? We had a discussion and most people wanted the section covering McTernan's predictions included. But we have a couple of people here who will clearly never agree to that, and who are happy to insta-ban anyone who restores it or adds a new version of it, and who point-blank refuse to address the clear arguments in favour - not arguments in terms of debate or opinion, but in terms of Wiki's clearly-laid-out rules. Is that it? Do a couple of intransigent individuals simply have a veto? Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well to sum up, pretty much every experienced editor that has commented on this issue (Myself, Yintan, Hillbillyholiday, JMorrison230582, Philip Cross, Escape Orbit and Alarics - seven "instransigent individuals" in total) agreed that the main part should stay out both on this talk page and the BLP/N board. Meanwhile, those in favour are;

• yourself (a single purpose account previously blocked for edit-warring on the subject)
• a couple of brand new accounts who have made only a couple of edits, all on this subject, but have a surprising knowledge of the issue
• another account with 80 edits that made one comment
• an account that hadn't edited for over a year that also managed to commit a BLP violation against McTernan on the BLP/N page
• a load of IPs starting with 32.X.X.X who are pretty obviously all the same person.

On that basis, I'll let you work out "where we go from here". Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Black Kite is correct. Furthermore, it is offensive to suggest, as Ms A. Lertreader does, that those of us who take that view are "politically-motivated". My own opinion of J. McTernan is also unfavourable, as it happens, but that is not the point. -- Alarics (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, having read a lot about McTernan during this whole fiasco, my opinion of him is also negative, but that absolutely does not mean I will agree with allowing badly-sourced BLP and SYNTH issues into the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was nice to have both of the people I cited as people who would never willingly permit the entry to be included chime in to confirm that, and to continue ad-hominem attacks on others, and to continue to evade the arguments, but it doesn't help much in moving us on from my question, does it? Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a simple stating of the facts is an ad-hominem attack, but whatever. Anyway, as I thought was clear, we won't be "moving on" with anything regarding McTernan's prediction skills, or lack of (unless some far better sourcing arises, and even then a number of people pointed out further problems). I think pretty much all of the experienced editors that have chimed in here have wasted enough of their time on this issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

We're still waiting to hear your problems with the sourcing. Non-neutral blogs are NOT excluded under Wiki rules. So which claim exactly do you question the sourcing of? Please be specific. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought the above was pretty clear - you've been told about the problems multiple times by multiple editors. I suggest you go and read WP:IDHT. Otherwise, there is nothing else to do here. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you thought wrong. Which claim is improperly sourced? Why can't you ever just tell us instead of avoiding and deflecting? Anna Lertreader (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there's a surprise - tumbleweed again when you ask which claim isn't properly sourced. Anna Lertreader (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John McTernan. 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/20150303225510/http://thinkers.sa.gov.au/thinkers/mcternan/who.aspx to http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/thinkers/mcternan/who.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513034149/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/newsfront.aspx?sectionid=17858&IsTopic=1 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/newsfront.aspx?sectionid=17858&IsTopic=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)