The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
A requested edit by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
I do not wish to start an editing war with another "TheRedPenOfDeath" (whom has been in editing wars with others over other topics recently) over content that pertains to this articles such as alleged documentation known as the Majestic Documents. These documents are the ones in question in the article that are either true or false and would allow the reader to form their own opinion without a biased point of view. If anything it is further documentation on the group the Majestic Twelve. Here's the addition: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 September 2014
Firstly, the material you have posted is copy-pasted from another website - one which asserts that it holds the copyright to the text. Accordingly, I have redacted it in its entirety. You must not post copyright material on Wikipedia talk pages - do so again and you may find yourself blocked from editing.
Secondly, we aren't the slightest bit interested in what majesticdocuments.com has to say about these documents - such websites do not remotely meet Wikipedia guidelines regarding reliable sources, and we certainly wouldn't use their analysis of said documents even if it weren't copyright..
Thirdly, since majesticdocuments.com is not a reliable source, we have no means to verifify that documents hosted on that website are authentic. Accordingly, the meterial hosted there is likewise of no relevance to this article.
I suggest that you take the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies, rather than wasting more of your time (and ours) with irrelevant material. This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the promotion of conspiracy theories - if you wish to peddle such credulous nonsense, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur, they have been shown to be at least in part, a complete fabrication (I only had a chance to check the World War II items). SeaphotoTalk 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with ATG and Seaphoto above and have marked as declined for sourcing. Sperril (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
A link to http://majesticdocuments.com in the "External Links" section has been removed on behalf of "Linkspam". Appearently, reading this Talk page, this is due to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." By removing this link I claim that it is Wikipedia who is misleading the reader, by not giving the choice of reading the documents and decide for themselves. Barry / Ichnaton. May 8, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichnaton (talk • contribs) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Majestic 12 was a hoax. Accordingly, a website which claims that 'documents' are real is misleading - and accordingly, it should not be linked. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of credulous bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)