Talk:Positive Money

Tag

This article has virtually no references that are RS for the content. At any rate, it's not proper to simply deny the concern and then remove article improvement tags. The tag should be restored until any editor who wishes to remove it can show that no further RS citations are needed. The article as it stands today is basically fringe promotion, and may be deleted if it's not improved. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced content and I feel that this article now requires the Notability tag. Do not remove this or you may be blocked from editing. Please read the policy concerning tags and their removal. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion which resulted to a unanimous. Therefore, I've removed the notability tag as this would appear to be no longer relevent and the purpose of these tages are for addressing concerns rather than remaining on articles indefinitely. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability tag is to attract editors to improve the article. If you have secondary independent RS references that have more than an incidental discussion of this organization, then please reveal them and add the associated content. It's very clear that the criterion for removing the tag has not been met. The notability tag is not the same thing as an AfD. Please do not edit war this tag in cahoots with the single purpose accounts and sockpuppets and please restore the tag and bring us some good substantial content to craft an article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of a notability tag, once it's been proven to be notable is no longer applies. An AfD has proven that the subject has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources, and the sources within article appear to meet this criteria whether you like it or not.

Sorry are you accusing Reissgo of being a sockpuppet? Tanbircdq (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail removed

Not RS. Please see [1] SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

History and movement

Do not reinsert without secondary independent RS citations to establish due weight and noteworthiness of this material.

Removed text follows

• France: Monnaie honnête.
• Switzerland: Sovereign Money initiative (German: Vollgeld, French: Monnaie pleine, Italian: Moneta interna).

International Movement for Monetary Reform

In 2014, Positive Money initiated the International Movement for Monetary Reform to reunite similar organisations around the world:

• Australia: Fair Money
• Bulgaria: Чисти пари
• Croatia: Budućnost Novca
• Denmark: Gode Penge
• Finland: Economic Democracy (Talousdemokratia)
• France: Monnaie honnête.
• Greece: FEKyou.info
• Germany: Monetative
• India: Money Reforms
• Israel: שינוי מוניטרי
• Iceland: Betra Peningakerfi
• Netherlands: Ons Geld
• Ireland: Sensible Money
• Italy: Moneta Bene Comune
• Poland: Pieniądz Pozytywny
• Portugal: Boa Moeda
• Puerto Rico: Dinero Justo
• New Zealand: Positive Money
• Slovakia: Férové Peniaze
• Spain: Dinero Positivo
• South Africa: Firstsource Money
• Sweden: Positiva Pengar
• Switzerland: Sovereign Money initiative (German: Vollgeld, French: Monnaie pleine, Italian: Moneta interna). There will be a national vote on this initiative on 10 June 2018.
• United Kingdom: Positive Money

SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello. Thank you for your message. What do you mean by 'secondary independent RS citations'? Is the official website of an organisation not a reference on its own members?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

The reason we need independent reliable sources is to establish that the article content is noteworthy and significant information for an encyclopedia. Please also see the link at WP:WEIGHT. You did a good service adding such references to the beginning of the article, but it's important to put the rest of the article in context by adding similar independent discussion of the organizations activities. There are help references available at this link [2]. Thanks for your contributions. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You should not reinsert content that's been challenged by removal. On WP we don't publish "original research" that is not directly and explicitly supported by published reliable sources. I've removed your reinsertion of invalid content. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these explanations. How can you decide that something is invalid when a source is given?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Please slow down and please see these pages: [3] [4] SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you see so much issues on this page, why don't you fix it yourself instead of deleting content and then just talking about it? Showing how to imporve things would help new users. And please answer the question on your talk page too.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Third opinion?

Hi, someone requested a WP:third opinion on this page, I'm offering to help. FrankP (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. We have a Single Purpose Account that came here and to other articles relating to this organization on its first day and appears to be putting unsourced or irrelevant content on various articles. Seems to have quieted down now. Thanks for volunteering at 3-O. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes I see. @Adèle Fisher: just to add to what has been said about notability, although something like an organisation's website can be a source for itself, it does not itself establish the notability of that organisation. Notable organisations get talked about, referred to in newspaper articles and so on, those are the kinds of references needed. FrankP (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these informations. Specifico, could you tell me here which content that I wrote in this article was 'unsourced'?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

I've already told you and pointed it out in edit summaries. You can't use WP:PRIMARY sources, opinion pieces, blogs, content that is related to the subject only by your own deductions or connections that you see but are not explicit in the sources, and so forth. You need to read the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and edit only when you are confident you understand them. It's highly unusual for a new account to go diving in as you are with almost all your work here tending to promote this organization and its fringe POV's. If you don't work within site norms, you will sooner or later be blocked. To avoid this, please study the Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is rather overstating things. You most definitely can use primary sources in some circumstances. For example basic uncontroversial information. So I too would encourage you to read the wikipedia policies, if only to see how wrong SPECIFICO is! Reissgo (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

For your information, on 23 February 2018, Specifico nominated this article for a discussion on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Money.
As it seems to have happened without notifying interested projects and editors, I post this message here.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

Primary-sourced and blog-sourced content

An editor has reinserted primary sourced and blog sourced content here [5]

While this may be very exciting to members of the organisation and their friends and family, there is no indication that this is encyclopedic content or that it is any more significant than the thousands of other groups who get this kind of day in the sun at Parliament. This content should be removed unless an independent secondary RS publication can be found to demonstrate its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you added the comedy sheep link. I don't remember that being discussed in parliament. Reissgo (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is significant article content, it should be easy to demonstrate its significance with secondary RS references. The narratative of Dyson's epiphany or his reading habits, without an explicit and essential connection to the subject of this article, is not encyclopedic. We could just as well recount that Margaret Thatcher got food poisoning one winter's night in 1976, descended into a week's delirium, and awoke knowing that Joan of Arc had visited her to insist she run for PM. @FrankP: SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The Grip of Death story could scarcely be more relevant. It was the reason the organisation got started in the first place. No grip of death, no Positive Money. The story has been repeated very widely. Nobody doubts its veracity. Reissgo (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record you can see Ben Dyson himself tell the story 40 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sgcWIsJVyg Reissgo (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the comment I left the new editor above [6] -- it applies all the more to you after all your years of editing here. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to edit-warred content

Contrary to Reissgo's recent edit summary, the defect in the book-reading epiphany content has been stated here on talk as it was also stated to the now-banned collaborator sockpuppet account Adele. The onus is on editors who wish to include this and they can start by responding to the reasons I've given repeatedly here and in edit summaries. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The truth of the story is not disputed by anyone, not even you. So the remaining question is - is it significant? Well that's a matter of opinion. You say no, I (and presumably @Tanbircdq:) say yes. The opinion of a now-banned editor one way or the other has no bearing on the matter.

The story of how something got started is encyclopaedic. The Velcro article contains the story of the walk in the woods with the dog and the page on Newton contains the story of the Apple tree. This is no different. Reissgo (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly relevent content about the orgin of how the organisation was founded. I see absolutely no WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH arguments for its removal.

The content being originally added (or not) by an COI or SPA has no relevance on whether the content should be included (or not). Tanbircdq (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Velcro??? SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The velcro company got started after a walk in the woods with a dog... and wikipedia tells the story.

Everybody knows what Velcro is. The point is it's entirely irrelevant and ridiculous to introduce Velcro into this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about Velcro the company, not the fastener. The analogy is a good fit: (1) Epiphany -> (2) chain of thoughts over a period of years -> (3) start of organization. (4) Wikipedia has page on the organization the includes description of (1). Reissgo (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are citing a French paywalled group advocacy blog. It states that this Ben Dyson was minding his own business, read some book By Rowbotham, and then went out and founded this Positive Money group, an advocacy group where he and editor Reissgo were apparently authors or colleagues. If we look at Mr. Dyson's various bios on the web, e.g. [7] [8] where does he tell us that reading a single book motivated his founding Positive Money? That's quite an extraordinary claim, that this person in his extensive research (as described) would be motivated to act by a single book he read. In fact, if we look at Dyson's own words he says no such thing -- even while mentioning that book: [9] So yes, this is an edit war to pry a misrepresentation of Dyson's personal views and history into this article. Dyson hiself makes clear that Positive Money was founded at least 4 years after he stumbled on the Rowbotham book. The edit-warred content is based on a weak source while stronger ones directly associated with Dyson fail to confirm or outright contradict it. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Here https://stanislasjourdan.fr/en/2012/02/05/interview-ben-dyson-positive-money/ is an interview with Ben Dyson. He is asked "What is the story behind Positive Money?" To which he begins his reply:

"It started when I was studying development and economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, of the university of London. I was obsessed by inflation because I could not understand why prices were rising so quickly. One day I was at the library, and I found a book called 'Grip of Death'..." Reissgo (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. So you have two problems now. First, that source is a self-published blogger-advocate who claims to be representing something Dyson told him. Not WP:RS. Second, this doesn't say what you keep trying to edit-war into the article text, namely, that Dyson had an epiphany whilst reading this book and directly went out and founded the Positive Money group. In fact it falsifies that claim, because it states that this book led the lad to a several-years long interest after which Positive Money was born. So it's like saying that Prince Charles and Lady Di heard a Petula Clark love song one day at Clarence House and it caused the birth of Prince Harry several years hence. Furthermore, this article is not Mr. Dyson's biography (where such detail might conceivably be relevant to the growth of his consciousness) but is an article about an organization with which he was (formerly?) affiliated. So for at least these 3 reasons, you should now remove it. It's bad. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

With regard the fact that the source is a blog - this is not an issue because the claim is not contentious. If the wiki page on BMW wanted to state that BMWs are the most efficient cars in the world then that would need a top top quality secondary source, but if the page wanted to sate that their head office was in Dusseldorf (or wherever) then a far lower quality source would suffice. The wiki pages on sourcing encourage editors to use common sense.

With regard the second point, Ben Dyson was not merely "affiliated" with PM, he actually founded it. Your argument about the time delay does not hold water. If any other editor supports this particular point I will address it in more detail. Reissgo (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS for nothing. Period. You need to read and understand WP policy. We have no idea whether any of this is even accurate, aside from all the other disqualifying factors. Please set aside the fan admiration and address WP editing protocols. Also, what's your personal relationship with Dyson? SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"We have no idea whether any of this is even accurate" - really?? You can see him tell the tale in more than one youtube video and read it recounted in a dozen different sources. I know Ben and I heard him tell the tale himself. And still you have "no idea" if it is true. Your protestations are preposterous. It is clear from your behavior on this page that your goal is to allow so little content that you can mount a further AfD attack. Reissgo (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well that gets to the crux of the larger problem that you keep denying like the nose on your face. You appear to have a COI. You are a single purpose account. You are promoting nonsense fringe greenie deflationist amateur gobbledygook replete with bogus "theorizing" and misrepresentation of all sorts of sources and documents. This edit needs to be removed. You are not even making an effort to research and write whatever policy-compliant article content might be scraped out of the RS mentions the group has managed to eke out in years of self-promotion and protest. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your last post is essentially just a rant and a personal attack. If you want to get your edit approved then please seek a third opinion. Reissgo (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

POV

This article contains SYNTH and OR and other promotional tilts that violate NPOV. These have been discussed on talk and are addressed in numerous edit summaries, but editors continue to reinstate bad content in the article without addressing these key defects on talk or with better-sourced neutral article text. SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The page only contains four sentences the first three of which are plain fact. The only one that could be considered an opinion comes from a famous German national newspaper. I suggest you address your suggested edits one issue at a time. Reissgo (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify about the POV tag, I do not oppose removing it, but we should follow proper procedure as outlined in WP:WTRMT. SPECIFICO, do you have objections to removing the tag? If so, what issue do you think needs to be addressed? LK (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Just to help ensure maximum clarity, here are the entire four sentences of the article. I am curious to know which particular ones are not expressing a neutral point of view.

1. Positive Money is a not-for-profit organisation based in London and Brussels that campaigns for various monetary reforms.

2. Positive Money was founded by Ben Dyson in 2010, after reading the book The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics by Michael Rowbotham.

3. Its Executive Director is Fran Boait, the prospective parliamentary candidate of the Labour Party for Gloucester in the 2022 general election.

4. Among its proposals, Positive Money is most recognised for its "sovereign money" policies.

2 SYNTH that attempts to associate the "authority" of what appears to be a self-published fringe treatise from a defunct publisher/distributor with the Positive Money organization. The statement provides no detail as to any actual connection other than the classical post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This is not encyclopedic information, or exposition. It's UNDUE and SYNTH.

3 Similarly attempts to associate the organization and/or is fringe theories with the House of Parliament via a mooted election campaign years in the future.

4 Fails verification - neither of the cited sources makes any statement that supports the article content.

• 1 is bad too, in that it accepts the organization's self-description of its agenda as "reforms", but that one is not worth discussing.
  

SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has expended enormous effort to minimise this page, deleting text wherever possible and instigating an Afd request which was rejected with nobody else voting for delete and with one uninterested editor noting that SPECIFICO was "straining too hard to minimise these reliable sources". Given that Wikipedia's opinion is to keep this article - would SPECIFICO like to suggest what he/she *would* allow to be said about this organisation? At the moment it appears you wish to delete the article indirectly by simply not allowing a single sentence! Reissgo (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Reissgo, your reply is confirmation that you have absolutely no substantive justification for the collation of drivel that is currently this article. LK gave you a free throw to try to rescue this mess by asking me to repeat my indictment of the current content and sourcing. But you didn't even take the shot. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time for this right now - the famed SPCIFICO "chilling effect" has worked. You win. Reissgo (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, would you explain the addition of the flags? Having trouble understanding how a page with 23 secondary sources would not be notable. There are many other pages with fewer secondary sources. Flurrious (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

—== Notability ==

My understanding of how notability works is that if an article hasn't yet added citations, a notability flag would be added. Then, when there are at least a handful of secondary sources it's removed.

Some of the prior conversation looks like it's no longer applicable and has been addressed. As far as I can tell, notability issues have been resolved. If there are any concerns, please explain. Flurrious (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The references are a mixture of opinion pieces, primary sources, non-mainstream reports and advocacy, and incidental mentions due to the Swiss referendum. This WP page was largely edited by a now-banned sockpuppet account, "Adele Fisher". What would be needed are mainstream reports or assessments of this group and their work. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've drafted a rewrite of the article. I believe this should be a decent base for a notable article. Let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flurrious/sandboxFlurrious (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you think the draft is a good base for notability, I'll submit it.Flurrious (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi I appreciate your willingness to work on this, but I think the draft has exactly the same problem -- primary and affiliated, dated, and narrow sourcing. This is typical for a subject that has marginal or defective notability and I'm afraid that any further efforts on your part would be in vain. The organization simply is not considered notable according to our standards here. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response SPECIFICO. I find it interesting you wouldn't consider BBC News, Business Insider, and Wall Street Journal mainstream. Would like to hear what you'd consider mainstream. Flurrious (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Strip it down to those sources and lets take a look. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a draft from just those 3, with the WSJ covering the whole first part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flurrious/Positive_MoneyFlurrious (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

At least there are sources for most of that text, but a lot of it is trivia and WP:UNDUE or failing WP:NPOV. I suggest you edit the article along the lines of your draft, which at least has arguably valid sources and take things from there. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)