This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
I see you placed a hoax tag on the Clockwork Orange article. When I created the article, I did put two sources (Hansard and Paul Foot are, or were, good mainstream sources). A quick google for Colin Wallace and/or Clockwork Orange will find plenty of references to it, not necessarily ones that pass
WP:RS. For example, these [1][2][3][4] are just a few random google hits on the subject, but you'll find plenty more. Mainstream journalists like Martin Dillon (in his book 'The Dirty War') and David Mckittrick (in the Irish Times) have commented on the existence of the allegations in print (but I didn't have any handy citations from those two to hand when I wrote the article and still don't). What makes you think there's any possible hoax as to the existence of the allegations? Whether the allegations are true or not is a different matter. --Aim Here 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I placed {{hoax}} because it presents the entire thing as absolutely factual. It says that the Project existed to smear politicians - it didn't. It needs to be rewritten to be an article about the theory not the fact, since we can't possibly know if the fact exists.--Rambutan (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article again. The alleged smearing of politicians is always treated as an unproven allegation throughout. For example "was alleged to have involved a right-wing smear campaign against British politicians in the 1970s." and "Colin Wallace ... also claims that ... the project began giving briefings to foreign journalists against politicians" and "Politicians alleged to have been smeared ..." and "Other than Wallace's testimony, the primary evidence for the existence of this plot consisted of ..." and "Archie Hamilton ... claimed that there was no evidence that this project involved a smear campaign against politicians."
That's a fair amount of hedging in a small article. Which parts of the article makes the claim that the smear campaign is a fact, because I don't see any.
In any case, that's not a job for a {{hoax}} tag, but a POV one. If you're going to be so loose with tags, at least take the trouble to explain the problem on the talk page.. This goes for Harold Wilson Conspiracy Theories too of course.--Aim Here 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag to POV --Aim Here 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguration please =
One would have expected this article to begin with a disambiguation sentence typically of the form "This article is about the such-and-such. For the whatnot of the same name, see blah blah blah". The title of this article makes it sound like the movie or novel "A Clockwork Orange" has a plot of such significance that the plot alone deserves its own article. How about "Clockwork Orange (British right-winger conspiracy)" or something like that?2604:2000:C682:2D00:4983:DD1:23A9:990 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
.svg){kind=small}