User:JasonCarswell/James Corbett (journalist) = Wikipedia draft article talk

2016-11-29 Wikipedia purge of "James Corbett (journalist)"
User Boleyn has purged/censored Wikipedia of all James Corbett (journalist) links on the James Corbett disambiguation page, Lionel, Sibel Edmonds, etc. I don't know if it's because I re-submitted a draft article yesterday which will take 2-3 weeks to review, or because of the recent (fake) controversy about "fake news" and everything related to this Corbett Report video and dynamic comment sections on YouTube and here: https://www.corbettreport.com/what-i-learned-from-the-propornot-propaganda-list/ as well as the almost identical James Corbett article on Rational Wiki, where I posted it after being censored on Wikipedia where you can go on and on and on about Pokemon but not alternative "fringe" news that speaks truth about power. I suspect that either reason sparked Boleyn to purge what were (temporarily) dead links (that I'll have to hunt down and re-link later). ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   12:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Curiously user Boleyn started with Sibel, then Lionel, then the disambiguation, yet did not remove the dead link to "The Corbett Report". ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   12:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed it here: User_talk:Boleyn ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   14:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Corbett Report = 2015 deleted article
I discovered that there was an attempt last year to create The Corbett Report but it was deleted. The person who deleted it temporarily restored it for me to merge with James Corbett (journalist). That conversation his here: User_talk:Ymblanter ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   14:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia rules and jargon. I'm trying to openly notate and contribute as much as possible for whatever that's worth. Regarding this article deleted late 2015, I thought it worth noting that it existed in March 2013. It had "multiple issues", "third party - date=March 2013", and "refimprove = date=March 2013" in the editing code, whatever that means, for whatever it's worth. ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   15:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The history of old The Corbett Report article shows that it was created 27 March, 2013 with between 80 and 90 edits until 10 November, 2015 after which it was deleted. ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

James Corbett categories deleted in draft
A bot corrected a couple categories (Canadian to Canadian people and Teachers to Educators), then User:Bearcat deleted them because it's still a draft, I believe. I'm listing them here for safe keeping until they can be re-introduced. Update as you see fit. ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   14:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Agnostics
 * Category:Anarchist academics
 * Category:Anarchist theorists
 * Category:Anarchists
 * Category:Audio podcasts
 * Category:Canadian expatriots
 * Category:Canadian journalists
 * Category:Canadian people
 * Category:Canadians abroad
 * Category:Citizen journalists
 * Category:Conspiracy theorists
 * Category:Counter-insurgency theorists
 * Category:Geopolitical analysts
 * Category:Educators
 * Category:Historians of anarchism
 * Category:Intelligence websites
 * Category:Internet properties established in 2007
 * Category:Investigative journalists
 * Category:Japan resident
 * Category:Japanese journalists
 * Category:Journalists
 * Category:Libertarian shows
 * Category:Libertarian television and radio shows
 * Category:Living people
 * Category:News websites
 * Category:Political podcasts
 * Category:Propaganda
 * Category:Revolution theorists
 * Category:Voluntaryists
 * Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard


 * Just for the record, some of them are also wrong categories that would not be appropriate for reintroduction at all.
 * Firstly, under our duplicate categorization rules, we do not file an article about a person in categories that are direct parents of other categories the person is already in — so he would not go in at the same time as,  and ; he would not go in  at the same time as ; and he would not go in  at the same time as  and . And by the same token,  is a category where people are subcatted by nationality whenever possible rather than being filed directly in the parent, so he would go in  and  rather than there.
 * Secondly, we categorize a person by what he personally literally physically is, not by "keywording" topics he's indirectly related to — so he would not belong in, , , , or , because those categories are for things that are podcasts or websites or broadcast shows or propaganda, not individual people whose work is connected with those subjects.
 * And thirdly, we don't file articles in categories that don't even exist to have articles filed in them. So "Canadians abroad", "Citizen journalists", "Geopolitical analysts" and "Japan resident" all have to go, because those aren't categories that even exist at all — and "Canadian expatriots" is a misspelling which should be replaced with.
 * Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Bearcat - That helps a lot! I didn't know how to apply it.  It took some time and effort to come up with the list and didn't want to lose it.  I hope that's okay.  I get so nervous about the Wikipedia rules.  He's interesting in a lot of ways and a little awkward to pin down.  For example he was teaching English in Japan.  I am not sure that he does anymore.  He's Canadian and I don't think he has intentions of becoming a Japanese citizen though he lives there with his new family.  Some of the list is from a deleted article on The Corbett Report which wasn't very long.  Thanks for your efforts and patience.  ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

How to get this draft published
1) Start only with mainstream sources that are independent of Corbett, but are specifically about Corbett. That means:
 * all the "sources" in Corbett Report and Corbett Report YouTube sections need to go away until notability is established.
 * the sources must meet our reliability guidelines. That means overglorified blogs like Skeptico, usawatchdog.com, and fauxcapitalist.com should not be used for a variety of reasons.  Websites like philosophers-stone.co.uk are a fucking joke and almost have me ready to block on WP:CIR grounds.
 * the sources actually have to mention Corbett. Comments on the source do not count.  For example, Tablet mag and Washington Post not mention Corbett.

Of the sources in the article that meet WP:RS and specifically mention Corbett, we have:
 * Prop or Not - which is just a passing mention, and so fails WP:GNG
 * The Guardian - again, a passing mention, and I don't see how it could possibly be the same James Corbett as the one this article is about. The Guardian does not link to any of Corbett's sites or writings, which they would if it was the same Corbett and if they thought he was reliable.

Like it or not, Wikipedia uses mainstream sources. If you don't want to use them, try a different site.

2) Do not try to use this article to advocate conspiracy theories. Wikipedia's official stance is that 9/11 was not an inside job and those who don't get that are not welcome to edit topics relating to 9/11.  Likewise, the Oklahoma city bombing was, per our article, not an inside job.  Our article on New World Order (conspiracy theory) identifies it as a conspiracy theory and not as an actual thing.  If this draft conflicts with our article on the topic, and that article is sourced to mainstream academic and journalistic sources, then you and this draft are wrong.

3) Being neutral does not main praising the subject at every turn. In fact, this draft is such a hagiography that I almost have to ask if Jason Carswell is a pseudonym for James Corbett.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)