Talk:Hungarian discrimination against Roma: Difference between revisions
→Neutrality: new section |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
"This article has serious POV problems. The Gypsy point of view completely predominates, slanted language is used - especially the Hungarian discrimination and Romani exodus section, the point of view of Hungarians is not taken seriously" , "it would be best if someone with more knowledge tried to fix some of these problems" written by Kostja in the talk page of [[Roma in Hungary]] article. I absolutely agree with these statements. It's true in this talk page also.--[[User:Rovibroni|Rovibroni]] ([[User talk:Rovibroni|talk]]) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
"This article has serious POV problems. The Gypsy point of view completely predominates, slanted language is used - especially the Hungarian discrimination and Romani exodus section, the point of view of Hungarians is not taken seriously" , "it would be best if someone with more knowledge tried to fix some of these problems" written by Kostja in the talk page of [[Roma in Hungary]] article. I absolutely agree with these statements. It's true in this talk page also.--[[User:Rovibroni|Rovibroni]] ([[User talk:Rovibroni|talk]]) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
"academic researchers and members of the mainstream press disregard" Who? There are two weasel-words in this sentence.--[[User:Rovibroni|Rovibroni]] ([[User talk:Rovibroni|talk]]) 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:29, 11 June 2010
Original research being re-added to the article
A few weeks ago, 207.108.250.158 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring over the insertion of POV content that relied heavily upon original research and synthesis of sources to attempt to support the biased content. Today, 81.183.101.42 (talk · contribs) appears to be restoring the same content to the article. Some of the claims in the addition do appear to be appropriately sourced; the primary problem is that the additions attempt to synthesize/extrapolate from the data in the sources to attempt to imply a broader issue than is actually supported by the sources provided, and to suggest conclusions that are not states or directly supported by the sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality
"This article has serious POV problems. The Gypsy point of view completely predominates, slanted language is used - especially the Hungarian discrimination and Romani exodus section, the point of view of Hungarians is not taken seriously" , "it would be best if someone with more knowledge tried to fix some of these problems" written by Kostja in the talk page of Roma in Hungary article. I absolutely agree with these statements. It's true in this talk page also.--Rovibroni (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"academic researchers and members of the mainstream press disregard" Who? There are two weasel-words in this sentence.--Rovibroni (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)