Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 13

::I don't really like your personal comments but they are reflective of the kind of thing that is thrown accusingly at anyone who suggests the article is a little bit one sided. Here is the whole name calling commentary, this is the NPOV noticeboard and imo and the opinion of others the BNP article has some serious NPOV issues, imo if you gave some enemies of the BNP the article to write you would get what we have now, it is also reflective of the problem when there are any editors that feel the need to defend and include such worthless insults in the text as this Daily Mirror rubbish that I have brought here, imo this is not balanced reporting in line with policy at all....

::I don't really like your personal comments but they are reflective of the kind of thing that is thrown accusingly at anyone who suggests the article is a little bit one sided. Here is the whole name calling commentary, this is the NPOV noticeboard and imo and the opinion of others the BNP article has some serious NPOV issues, imo if you gave some enemies of the BNP the article to write you would get what we have now, it is also reflective of the problem when there are any editors that feel the need to defend and include such worthless insults in the text as this Daily Mirror rubbish that I have brought here, imo this is not balanced reporting in line with policy at all....

The ''Daily Mirror'' has described the party's MEPs as "'''vile prophets''' who preach a '''Nazi-style ''' of '''racial hatred'''".James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009 An editorial in ''The Guardian'' characterises the BNP as "a '''racist organisation''' with a '''fascist pedigree''' that '''rightfully belongs under a stone'''".[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/15/bnp-question-time-bbc-griffin The BNP on Question Time is the wrong party on the wrong programme], The Guardian, 15 October 2009 Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "'''a party of thugs, fascists'''".Nick Clegg, speaking on ''Today'', BBC Radio 4, 8 June 2009 Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for '''a bunch of fascists'''... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still '''Nazi thugs'''."{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5395358/David-Cameron-attacks-fascist-BNP.html|title=David Cameron attacks 'fascist' BNP|date=31 May 2009|publisher=The Daily Telegraph|accessdate=31 May 2009}} Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's ''Question Time'' (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the '''fascists''' believed in the '''second world war''', they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the '''purity of the Aryan race'''. It is a '''foul and despicable party''' and however they change their constitution they will remain '''foul and despicable'''."Alan Travis, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/16/alan-johnson-bnp-question-time "Alan Johnson says BBC should bar 'foul' BNP from Question Time"] guardian.co.uk, 16 October 2009quoted in James Robinson, "The right to be heard?", ''The Guardian'' Media section, 19 October 2009 p1 [[Peter Hain]] describes the BNP as "a '''racist organisation''' with known '''fascist roots and values'''" and wrote about its "'''racist and fascist agenda'''".Peter Hain, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-question-time-television "A clueless BBC is giving the BNP the legitimacy it craves"], ''The Guardian, 12 October 2009, p30

The ''Daily Mirror'' has described the party's MEPs as "'''vile prophets''' who preach a '''Nazi-style ''' of '''racial hatred'''".James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009 An editorial in ''The Guardian'' characterises the BNP as "a '''racist organisation''' with a '''fascist pedigree''' that '''rightfully belongs under a stone'''".[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/15/bnp-question-time-bbc-griffin The BNP on Question Time is the wrong party on the wrong programme], The Guardian, 15 October 2009 Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "'''a party of thugs, fascists'''".Nick Clegg, speaking on ''Today'', BBC Radio 4, 8 June 2009 Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for '''a bunch of fascists'''... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still '''Nazi thugs'''."{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5395358/David-Cameron-attacks-fascist-BNP.html|title=David Cameron attacks 'fascist' BNP|date=31 May 2009|publisher=The Daily Telegraph|accessdate=31 May 2009}} Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's ''Question Time'' (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the '''fascists''' believed in the '''second world war''', they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the '''purity of the Aryan race'''. It is a '''foul and despicable party''' and however they change their constitution they will remain '''foul and despicable'''."Alan Travis, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/16/alan-johnson-bnp-question-time "Alan Johnson says BBC should bar 'foul' BNP from Question Time"] guardian.co.uk, 16 October 2009quoted in James Robinson, "The right to be heard?", ''The Guardian'' Media section, 19 October 2009 p1 [[Peter Hain]] describes the BNP as "a '''racist organisation''' with known '''fascist roots and values'''" and wrote about its "'''racist and fascist agenda'''".Peter Hain, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-question-time-television "A clueless BBC is giving the BNP the legitimacy it craves"], ''The Guardian'', 12 October 2009, p30

*Here is what I would do with this content to help it be a bit more in line with policy, I would remove the daily mirror comment as they have no credibility whatsoever and I would remove the comment that starts ..''in an op ed'' and then simply goes on to insult and accuse,then I would perhaps summarize the rest, job done, exactly the same point would be made without the excessive childish insults. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

*Here is what I would do with this content to help it be a bit more in line with policy, I would remove the daily mirror comment as they have no credibility whatsoever and I would remove the comment that starts ..''in an op ed'' and then simply goes on to insult and accuse,then I would perhaps summarize the rest, job done, exactly the same point would be made without the excessive childish insults. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's a kind and patient soul whose willing to teach others. Believe me, I know. So thank you again for your patient help and guidance. [[User:Hplotkin|Hplotkin]] ([[User talk:Hplotkin|talk]]) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's a kind and patient soul whose willing to teach others. Believe me, I know. So thank you again for your patient help and guidance. [[User:Hplotkin|Hplotkin]] ([[User talk:Hplotkin|talk]]) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

*Hal, what I mean is, as soon as you are only one of many contributors to the article there will be ample reason to remove the tag; sorry that I didn't make that clear. But again, I think the article isn't problematic (that is, you have done well), it's just a matter of disclosure, and if other editors feel that there is no need for the COI tag they are free to remove it--you probably shouldn't do that yourself. No, I wouldn't remove the bio if it were me (but mine would have a "speedy deletion" tag on it immediately!); still, you can ask for the article to be deleted if you like: see [[Template:Db-g7]] (I've contributed a little bit, but I won't stand in the way). Oh, if you want the article to look better, upload a nice photograph (see "upload file" in the left navigation panel) and add an [[Template:Infobox officeholder]]. I'm not sure if I approve of the way you knotted your tie on your Facebook photo, but that's just me.

Now, if you want to know something about the problems we've had (note that I removed wife and daughter) and are still working out on Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] should offer some insight into the issues related to what we abbreviate as BLPs. Allowing such biographies goes to the heart of what Wikipedia's strong and weak points are, and there are great opportunities there for abuse (as you noticed, to your and my dismay) and misinformation, besides what is called POV-pushing ([[WP:NPOV]]). So I hope you don't mind that I put the tag on there and won't remove it (I'm in English, but I still try to be morally consistent), and it's nothing personal (you seem a pretty balanced editor here), believe me. Good luck building a bridge to the 22nd century, and drop me a line if I can be of any assistance. In the meantime, I got a letter to write. ;) [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

*Hal, what I mean is, as soon as you are only one of many contributors to the article there will be ample reason to remove the tag; sorry that I didn't make that clear. But again, I think the article isn't problematic (that is, you have done well), it's just a matter of disclosure, and if other editors feel that there is no need for the COI tag they are free to remove it--you probably shouldn't do that yourself. No, I wouldn't remove the bio if it were me (but mine would have a "speedy deletion" tag on it immediately!); still, you can ask for the article to be deleted if you like: see [[Template:Db-g7]] (I've contributed a little bit, but I won't stand in the way). Oh, if you want the article to look better, upload a nice photograph (see "upload file" in the left navigation panel) and add an [[Template:Infobox officeholder]]. I'm not sure if I approve of the way you knotted your tie on your Facebook photo, but that's just me.

Now, if you want to know something about the problems we've had (note that I removed wife and daughter) and are still working out on Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] should offer some insight into the issues related to what we abbreviate as BLPs. Allowing such biographies goes to the heart of what Wikipedia's strong and weak points are, and there are great opportunities there for abuse (as you noticed, to your and my dismay) and misinformation, besides what is called POV-pushing ([[WP:NPOV]]). So I hope you don't mind that I put the tag on there and won't remove it (I'm in English, but I still try to be morally consistent), and it's nothing personal (you seem a pretty balanced editor here), believe me. Good luck building a bridge to the 22nd century, and drop me a line if I can be of any assistance. In the meantime, I got a letter to write. ;) [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== "Assyrianization" ==

== "Assyrianization" ==

::Try close to four hundred years of history. The comparison of Hillary's ''weight'' relative to Harvard and her ''weight'' relative to Media Matters is absurd. [[User:Badmintonhist|Badmintonhist]] ([[User talk:Badmintonhist|talk]]) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::Try close to four hundred years of history. The comparison of Hillary's ''weight'' relative to Harvard and her ''weight'' relative to Media Matters is absurd. [[User:Badmintonhist|Badmintonhist]] ([[User talk:Badmintonhist|talk]]) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:: <strike>Rapier, do you have any comment on the neutrality of the actual text that's been proposed for the article? [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)strike>

:: <s>Rapier, do you have any comment on the neutrality of the actual text that's been proposed for the article? [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)s>

:: Oops. I was under the impression that Rapier/SeanNovack was a disinterested editor here. In fact, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMedia_Matters_for_America&action=historysubmit&diff=357734459&oldid=357733132 expressed this same opinion more than a week ago on the article talk page]. [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Oops. I was under the impression that Rapier/SeanNovack was a disinterested editor here. In fact, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMedia_Matters_for_America&action=historysubmit&diff=357734459&oldid=357733132 expressed this same opinion more than a week ago on the article talk page]. [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)