User talk:Random832/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:49, 19 January 2008

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Random832. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Username

As I had been reading this section from the user:Eonon userpage, what about user:Moorcroft shouldn't that lot be blocked as this is the reason why I plus some other users had to nominate pages related to the Moorcroft company considering that is all they had edited. Willirennen (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul - newsletter controversy

I kindly ask that you reconsider denying the requested protected edit of the Newsletter controversy section of the Ron Paul entry. The current version of the section opens with and repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters", yet Ron Paul claims he did not edit the newsletters and that he has "never uttered such words" as those quoted from the newsletters.[1]. I find our current language to be misleading and possibly violating WP:BLP, and potentially libelous (although presidential candidates are in open season so we're unlikely to be sued). I thus requested that the repeated instances of the possessive "Paul's newsletters" are changed to the neutral "the newsletters".

Please note how journalists at UPI and CNN report on the newsletters controversy, avoiding the possessive and using phrases like "newsletters under his name". I think we should stick to at least the same level of objectivity and neutral point of view. Of course, it is possible to cherry-pick media coverage that actively uses the possessive, particularly opinion articles and sensationalist press, headlines, blogs and letters to the editor. Case in point, The New Republic, listed by another editor in the discussion as an example of "three reputable publications" that "have used the terminology", is a limited circulation liberal opinion magazine. No surprise their article "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul" repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters". But that doesn't give us a free pass to frame our section that way without explicit citations and careful choice of language.

Most of the opposition arguments in the debate boils down to that the editor's point of view is that these were Ron Paul's newsletters, ergo we should write they are his newsletters. In contrast, my position is that we should carefully avoid imposing our own POV.

Note that I am not arguing for language that deny that these are Paul's newsletters, and we should of course not be shy about including material that may contradict Paul. I am arguing for use of neutral language that let the readers draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented in the section. I thus request that you make the requested protected edit to the article.

-- Terjen (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yukon stubs

One reason I used cut and paste was to avoid having to make multiple edits, since the categories the template fed into had to be changed as well. By the way, doing the move on top the new template caused a small problem that required a null edit in one of the articles using the template in order to have the template place them in the correct category(s). Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 As I had been reading this section from the [[user:Eonon]] userpage, what about [[user:Moorcroft]] shouldn't that lot be blocked as this is the reason why I plus some other users had to nominate pages related to the [[Moorcroft]] company considering that is all they had edited. [[User:Willirennen|Willirennen]] ([[User talk:Willirennen|talk]]) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
+== [[Ron Paul]] - newsletter controversy ==
+I kindly ask that you reconsider denying the [[Talk:Ron_Paul#Newsletters|requested protected edit]] of the [[Ron_Paul#.22Ron_Paul_Report.22_newsletter_controversy|Newsletter controversy]] section of the [[Ron Paul]] entry. The current version of the section opens with and repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters", yet Ron Paul claims he did not edit the newsletters and that he has "never uttered such words" as those quoted from the newsletters.[http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108]. I find our current language to be misleading and possibly violating [[WP:BLP]], and potentially libelous (although presidential candidates are in open season so we're unlikely to be sued). I thus requested that the repeated instances of the possessive "Paul's newsletters" are changed to the neutral "the newsletters".
+Please note how journalists at [http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/11/paul_denies_writing_racist_articles/1203/ UPI] and [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/?iref=mpstoryview CNN] report on the newsletters controversy, avoiding the possessive and using phrases like "newsletters under his name". I think we should stick to at least the same level of objectivity and neutral point of view. Of course, it is possible to cherry-pick media coverage that actively uses the possessive, particularly opinion articles and sensationalist press, headlines, blogs and letters to the editor. Case in point, [[The New Republic]], listed by another editor in the discussion as an example of "three reputable publications" that "have used the terminology", is a limited circulation liberal opinion magazine. No surprise their article [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca|"Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul"] repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters". But that doesn't give us a free pass to frame our section that way without explicit citations and careful choice of language.
+Most of the opposition arguments in the debate boils down to that the editor's point of view is that these were Ron Paul's newsletters, ergo we should write they are his newsletters. In contrast, my position is that we should carefully avoid imposing our own POV.
+Note that I am not arguing for language that deny that these are Paul's newsletters, and we should of course not be shy about including material that may contradict Paul. I am arguing for use of neutral language that let the readers draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented in the section. I thus request that you make the [[Talk:Ron_Paul#Newsletters|requested protected edit]] to the article.
+-- [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] ([[User talk:Terjen|talk]]) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
+== Yukon stubs ==
+One reason I used cut and paste was to avoid having to make multiple edits, since the categories the template fed into had to be changed as well.  By the way, doing the move on top the new template caused a small problem that required a null edit in one of the articles using the template in order to have the template place them in the correct category(s). <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]]</span> [[User_talk:Caerwine|<small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines</small>]] 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)