User talk:Jacksoncw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 2014[edit]

Information icon

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to UK Independence Party. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Adding the word 'propaganda' to describe a film violates our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation for the sentence where I added the word propaganda, found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html , explicitly uses the word propaganda do describe the film, so my addition of the word propaganda directly fits and is accurate to the source. In no way can this be described as "add[ing] commentary or [my] own personal analysis". I would appreciate it if you would remove the erroneous warning you gave me. Thanks. I have also left this message on your talk page. --Jacksoncw (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to your post to my talk page, " no chance. That is clearly reflecting UKIP's views, hence the 'scare quotes' around the word propaganda. And even if a source called it propaganda that doesn't mean we cn without violating NPOV. In the article about the film we might mention sources calling it propaganda attributing such descriptions, but that's all." The edit was NPOV. It may have been an error on your part and hopefully you now understand why it was NPOV, but the warning is appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. --Jacksoncw (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see why I should remove the request/notification above and it still doesn't seem clear to me that you understand our policy. Among other problems, you didn't add the word directly from the source as the source says 'propaganda' in inverted commas, and you removed those. The effect of your edit was to have Wikipedia state as fact that the film is a propaganda film, and that violates NPOV. Something like that virtually always needs attribution - if you'd said "which UKIP considers to be an example of global warming propaganda" that might have been acceptable so far as policy goes, but you didn't do that. It's important that you understand all of this. Note that of course you can remove almost any post on your talk page, and that indicates that you've read it. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how the word propaganda could possibly have any POV. The word has neither a negative nor a positive connotation; it is simply a noun. Wikipedia definition: " a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position." Merriam Webster definition: "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". I think you are projecting, because the word propaganda succinctly describes the movie and is a direct quote from the source.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)