Talk:Ilario Pantano
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilario Pantano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilario Pantano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Where's the History?
Respectfully, the wikipedia is not for POV discussions. I appreciate that you started this article; however, your own biases shine through. Personal opinion and speculation (such as your 'reasonable interpretation') do a disservice to those who have access to the actual documents and testimony, as well as those actually involved in the case. It would be prudent at this point to step back and allow others with more knowledge on the subject to comment in order to ensure that the situation is reported based on the facts available instead of speculation and conjecture. As an encyclopedia, accuracy within the Wikipedia is important.
== Accuracy is the one thing that is not important in Wikipedia. The only thing that is important is being able to quote from sources the Asperger's-riddled editors consider "reliable." Primary sources such as you describe are not welcome, and deemed "original research." Just one reason I will never give Wikipedia any money. You shouldn't either.
Those who are in possession of the court documents, testimony transcripts, handwritten statements, and personal interviews with the parties involved are more qualified to expand this entry in a factual and fair way than someone going purely off of press releases and conjecture. I am more than willing to take over the maintenance of this article, and provide documentation to back up the facts I am listing. If there is someone else who has more information and hard documents than I do, I would gladly step aside for them. However, I and my co-blogger are the only bloggers on the internet with the level of information that we possess. Also, there are only 3 journalists with the level of access we have to Pantano and his defense team. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would be qualified to comment on the case.
POV witnesses section?
I haven't looked at this article in a long time. I see a lot of unsupported assertions. Some of those assertions I think would merit a {{cn}} tag. problem I had is that I originally supplied good valid references that would have supported some of the currently unreferenced assertions, and those references have been removed.
That may be due to normal human fallibility, not an injection of POV. Nevertheless this section seems to me to have been biased to de-emphasize aspects of Pantano's case that showed him in a bad light. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- This article has numerous sections written as promotional material. Referenced citations, when provided, often link to inappropriate sources. Jerimee (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Post election edits
I reverted the recent edits regarding 2010 election results based on POV. While they may have been cited (by a more or less reliable source), they carried a definite POV slant. Moreover, they restated facts/spin already described in the article and elsewhere. I hope future edits on Pantano will respect WP:NPOV. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good job, I had considered doing the same but didn't feel like getting caught up in all the BS (I did the original POV cleanup Tuesday night). On second glance, the source article was copied/pasted here, so it violated WP:COPYVIO as well. 98.74.135.22 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)