Jump to content

Talk:Roger Cohen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
The Squicks (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
The Squicks (talk | contribs)
Line 27: Line 27:


::: I believe there is [[WP:Undue weight]] on this "Iran writings" section given that so little of the rest of his career has been explored in the article. But I don't think that the "Iran" section constitutes a [[Wikipedia:Attack page]] more so than a controversy. And do page's like Richard Chesnoff's or Rabbi David Wolpe's on [[The Huffington Post]] clearly fall outside the realm of [[WP:Reliable sources]]?[[User:ShamWow|ShamWow]] ([[User talk:ShamWow|talk]]) 16:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
::: I believe there is [[WP:Undue weight]] on this "Iran writings" section given that so little of the rest of his career has been explored in the article. But I don't think that the "Iran" section constitutes a [[Wikipedia:Attack page]] more so than a controversy. And do page's like Richard Chesnoff's or Rabbi David Wolpe's on [[The Huffington Post]] clearly fall outside the realm of [[WP:Reliable sources]]?[[User:ShamWow|ShamWow]] ([[User talk:ShamWow|talk]]) 16:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: ''[[The Huffington Post]]'' is a reliable source in and of itself.

:::: Personally, I believe that the answer to this weighting problem is to expand the rest of the article until that section becomes proportionate. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:26, 3 May 2009

Objectivity

Barely an objective article. Words like "virulently anti-Israel" should and could be replaced by different wordings like "critical of Israel". The same goes for "minimized the oppression..." and others. This article is more than clearly biased. Perhaps it's good for the blogosphere but not for wikipedia. If one is unable too control one's political ideas, perhaps one shouldn't edit Wikipedia pages. 94.237.41.78 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran writings and responses

This is the biography of a living person. The "Iran" section is too long (taking up 70% of the article's space), with too much weight and emphasis given to the opinions of a few partisan critics, some of which includes personal attacks on the subject. In my opinion, the section violates WP:Undue weight and WP:BLP. It should be summarized and re-written. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a violation of policy and we are even supposed to delete the whole article if it can't be fixed:
"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person." - Wikipedia:Attack page
Another issue is that Rabbi Wolpe's blog has dubious admissibility, see the mention of blogs on WP:RS. Astarabadi (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way to improve the balance would be to quote more of Cohen's response [1]. Astarabadi (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is WP:Undue weight on this "Iran writings" section given that so little of the rest of his career has been explored in the article. But I don't think that the "Iran" section constitutes a Wikipedia:Attack page more so than a controversy. And do page's like Richard Chesnoff's or Rabbi David Wolpe's on The Huffington Post clearly fall outside the realm of WP:Reliable sources?ShamWow (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post is a reliable source in and of itself.
Personally, I believe that the answer to this weighting problem is to expand the rest of the article until that section becomes proportionate. The Squicks (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]