Talk:Avro Manhattan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1[edit]

Knight of Malta? That suggests heavy Roman Catholicism, unless it comes from one of the other self-styled orders. The website http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/Baron-Manhattan.html says he was also a Knight of the House of Savoy as well as a Knight Templar and a Knight of the Order of Mercedes. It all seems rather dubious to me. --Henrygb 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled[edit]

I find rather strange that you can't buy any book of Avro Manhattan directly from Amazon.com.--Rocator 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you can buy many Manhattan's books fro Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-keywords=Religious%20terror%20Ireland http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-keywords=Vatican%20billions:%20two%20thousand%20years%20wealth%20ac http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-keywords=Vatican%20world%20politics http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-keywords=dollar%20Vatican --96.241.138.114 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading that the Church bought up most of the supplies at one time. For a while they were indeed very hard to obtain. Many are now available again it seems both from Amazon and/or as free downloads. Parzivalamfortas 14:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

knight of Malta?[edit]

I found Manhattan cited in this "Initial Membership List of the Knights of Malta" with improbable names.
In the article we are talking about this or about the real order of Knights of Malta?Initial Membership List of the Knights of Malta--Domics (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Which "real list" are we talking about? The one here: https://canadafcusa.wordpress.com/history-of-tyranny/the-vaticans-new-world-order-the-knights-of-malta/ appears to be a photograph or screencap of a list compiled by the same Eric Samuelson mentioned on other sites. There would be nothing to stop a member's name being expunged if it was felt that they had published material contrary to the 'interests' of the Order. As it is a secret order there seems little way of determining it. However I understand that there is some Wiki policy that says biographical pages should not focus purely on negative accusations (I this case, the idea that Manhattan "lied" about himself).[reply]

Additional material[edit]

Additional material is clearly needed. I have added a short section (Manhattan's death) with material from another book that has online excerpts of the part quoted (the small additional mention of the post-burial notice from the same book was accessed using a Google Books Preview Search). After the words "in any newspaper" I have omitted the words "in the world" as that claim, while it might have been a reasonable and correct assumption by a historian, is not provable. I was a little concerned that the text, as with much of Manhattan's writings it seems, invites accusations of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, both Avro Manhattan and George Lucien Gregoire appear to be highly qualified, holding responsible posts even if their writings are controversial. Their books are also well annotated in scholarly fashion. I looked for some Roman Catholic rebuttals, but didn't find much beyond rant. The Conspiracy Encycopedia (Thom Burnett) says that Manhattan's theories rely on a particular way of seeing things, which is true for most of history. Some of Manhattan's work has been supported by academic John Cornwell (writer), a link to which I will add separately.[1] Cornwell is not without his critics either, but his work is substantial enough not to be dismissed out of hand and is clearly relevant to a page on Manhattan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added (with respect to a missing reference) a link to biographical details in one of his online books that I found. The fuller entry reads, "During the war, Mr. Manhattan operated a radio station called Radio Freedom broadcasting to the partisans in occupied Europe. For this service he was made a Knight of Malta. His aristocratic roots meant that he was a Knight of the House of Savoy as well as a Knight Templar and a Knight of the Order of Mercedes. His more than 20 books include the best-selling The Vatican in World Politics, one of the best-selling books of all time. It was translated into most major languages including Chinese, Russian and most recently, Korean. He was a member of the Royal Society of Literature, Society of Authors, Ethical Union, P.E.N., British Interplanetary Society, etc." If some of this material is controversial, there is no justification to include it. It sounds unusual that a highly regarded member of society would make false claims; though once his books had been published, it would be understandable if Catholic Orders revoked any knighthoods. As he was on good speaking terms with such Orders while doing research however, it doesn't seem too unbelievable that he was knighted for the services mentioned. I will leave it to the more experienced editors just now to decide whether on balance the other details are worthy of inclusion on the Wiki page. Parzivalamfortas 16:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican55.htm

dubious edits[edit]

I came across this page and spent about an hour adding sources and references, both to existing material where a reference was absent, and to additional external sources. I stated on the talk page that I had deliberately omitted what seemed to me speculative material and discussed sources. Farsight001, a staunch defender of the Catholic Church judging from his contributions, then removed all the work en bloc on the basis that he considered it a 'ridiculous point of view.' This is in spite of the fact that such 'point of view' was testified from more than one source, and, even if controversial, submitted by respectable, educated authors. I initially viewed his revision as vandalism but I have no intent to start a war with thought police that attempt to insist on monolithic viewpoints to the detriment of Wikipedia. Avro Manhattan is seen by many as perhaps the single most important critic of the Roman Catholic Church and has been suppressed since he began writing. I had hoped for better on Wiki, but it is not my fight one way or the other. I discussed my additions on the Talk Page. Farsight001 did not. I am disinclined to try to contribute in the face of such barbarism. Nothing personal, sorry. Parzivalamfortas 19:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1 - A "staunch defender of the Catholic Church"? What does one of those look like? It doesn't take a Catholic to see that your edit didn't belong. Regardless, assuming good faith is a rule here.
2 - I'm sorry it took you an hour. Your edit is not lost, as there is an edit history that preserves all edits.
3 - There are standards on wikipedia. The sources used must fit the definition found in WP:RS. The sources you provided do not. They don't even come close. First of all, Gregoire is not a qualified expert nor does he provide any real supporting evidence for a single one of his rather wild claims. The entire Vietnamese army was Catholic? As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Most of the claims in the book are EXTREMELY extraordinary and no attempt to provide ANY evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence was given. And regarding the links to the arcticbeacon website, I would point out that on the "about the author" section of the website, it describes him as a satirist first. The entire website is satire. The point being that none of the sources you gave can be used here. You need more solid citations - MUCH more solid.
3 - I don't believe that Avro Manhatten is seen by many as the most important anything. Ian Paisley, Jack Chick, or perhaps Fred Phelps, I might see. But Avro Manhatten is a complete and utter no-name by comparison.
4 - Per WP:NPOV policy, the article is to be weighted in a way that reflects the weight of reliable sources about the subject. If reliable sources give heavy praise such as, for example, Mother Theresa, then the article gives high praise. If reliable sources are largely critical, such as for Adolf Hitler, then the article is largely critical. Since Avro Manhatten is largely criticized by reliable sources as a fraudster and a nut, this article is, per policy, supposed to reflect that attitude. Reading the article, it is clear that it is failing to reflect this critical attitude and should be more NEGATIVE towards him, not more positive as your edits made it sound.Farsight001 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your claims; but I am not on some mission to promote Manhattan and don't have time to take your edits to mediation. Manhattan has written a large number of books. He is very opposed to the Roman Catholic Church but I see little or no evidence of his being a fraudster. His works carry many citations. Some of his views of Vietnam, which you mention, were borne out by CIA whistleblowers. When there is so much commotion over someone, it seems to me that Wiki should seek balance. Even if one was to say "his claims are seen as fraudulent by some" and give some sources. I cannot find any sources that demonstrate he is fraudulent, though I can see Catholic writers being dismissive, as you yourself have been. As an outside observer (I don't just write about religious issues), it looks rather like whitewash to me. I might be wrong but that is how it looks. Where I offered other references you dismissed them as rubbish as well, so it is hard to get anywhere. Many of the things he seems to have written about have also been correlated on other wiki pages under criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. I hardly think the Roman Catholic Church are going to entertain anything good being said about him unless they have to. Yet if there is a page about him at all, I think some credence should be given to what he himself said, and then add sources to indicate reasonable doubt. Parzivalamfortas 06:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

1 - His rampant and contradictory claims as well as his ridiculous assertions that aren't actually supported by his "citations" in the first place should set you off. If they don't, I don't know what to tell you.
2 - Regardless, the standard here on wikipedia is not "no evidence indicating he is a fraudster", but rather that the article reflect the attitude of relevant experts and their attitude is that he is a fraudster. Thus, the article MUST indicate the same per WP:NPOV. If the experts all said the sky was brown, even though we could go outside and see blue, we would still be required to report that it is brown. I hope that helps illustrate that our job at wikipedia is only to report what the experts say, not to make the decisions ourselves.
3 - How could this article look like a white wash? It does nothing but speak positively of him already. Its POV in the WRONG direction and you want to make it even worse. It white washed all the bad stuff about him, and like you said, if you want to remain neutral, that stuff must be included.
4 - No credence should ever be given to someone regarding what they said about themselves. They are credible sources only for their own beliefs here on wikipedia, nothing more. What you think he should and, actually, what I think he should, does not matter one iota here. It is all about policy, which I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with. It will help in further editing here and elsehwere.Farsight001 (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher?[edit]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that he was an accredited philosopher, which generally refers to someone who has at least some sort of a doctorate in philosophy. It would not appear that this person had such a doctorate, and it doesn't even appear that his education at the Sorbonne and London School of Economics is verifiable. Or is it? Laval (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avro Manhattan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avro_Manhattan&oldid=1203871859"