Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Break N: add |
→Break N: yes |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 657: | Line 657: | ||
:::::::"BLP is referring to claims edited into articles as sourced facts" No, that's not the case. For example, blp prevents us from writing "Paul says on his website, 'Peter stole that money.'" But that's a more general (and more important) point that could be taken up on the blp talk page. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::"BLP is referring to claims edited into articles as sourced facts" No, that's not the case. For example, blp prevents us from writing "Paul says on his website, 'Peter stole that money.'" But that's a more general (and more important) point that could be taken up on the blp talk page. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Mmm yes. Violating BLP would be a problem. Or was it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZeitgeist%3A_The_Movie&diff=565207286&oldid=565198423 an NPOV issue], something to do with preventing the page from being a platform for Zeitgeist supporters? How about this. Since all other attempts at gaining outside views have not turned out in your favor, I'll let you go to the BLP talk page to see what they tell you. I'm going to hope you get shot down again, and then we can see what your next rationale will be for trying to keep this statement out. I'm getting a little tired of this pro-vs-anti Joseph fight I stepped into instead of working with people who want to simply craft a good article. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who has strong feelings for or against Peter Joseph needs to take five steps back and let others edit it for a while. I'm not altogether far from an ANI attempt at making that official. Biased people should simply not be here, and I don't care how much you ''think'' you're ignoring those instincts. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 12:08, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font> |
::::::::Mmm yes. Violating BLP would be a problem. Or was it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZeitgeist%3A_The_Movie&diff=565207286&oldid=565198423 an NPOV issue], something to do with preventing the page from being a platform for Zeitgeist supporters? How about this. Since all other attempts at gaining outside views have not turned out in your favor, I'll let you go to the BLP talk page to see what they tell you. I'm going to hope you get shot down again, and then we can see what your next rationale will be for trying to keep this statement out. I'm getting a little tired of this pro-vs-anti Joseph fight I stepped into instead of working with people who want to simply craft a good article. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who has strong feelings for or against Peter Joseph needs to take five steps back and let others edit it for a while. I'm not altogether far from an ANI attempt at making that official. Biased people should simply not be here, and I don't care how much you ''think'' you're ignoring those instincts. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 12:08, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font> |
||
:::::::::If you've decided I'm arguing in bad faith, there's little point in our continuing to discuss this. Take it to ANI if you like. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Yes, I've decided that. I've assumed otherwise until this jumping between different arguments for the same bit of content became apparent. But if it helps, I'm sure if we were arguing for some bit of positive Joseph content that policy didn't support, there would be just as much inappropriate behavior coming from the other side of the fence. But let's assume for the moment that neither of those things are true. How about this: Let's include Joseph's statement because it's good for the reader. Fuck policy. Common sense demands that if we've reported that someone said something, and we're aware of them having denied it, the reader should know that rather relevant fact? Otherwise the reader is denied an important piece of information. Making mention that they've ''said'' it does not lend credence to it. Want to say that BLP concerns trump common sense? BLP concerns for an individual trump those of a news organization, if you ask me. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 12:44, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font> |
|||
:This ''vote'' seems phony. And I protest characterizing another editor as being ''Since [[User:Arthur Rubin]] appears to have lost his mind, I'm going to attempt to move on here.'' That sucks User Equazcion. You are using the same tactics of trash talking that Nightscream has used of demeaning language and intimidation. Something is really wrong here also with dredging up people, from who knows where, to throw in some ''vote'' when they are not even involved, that would be o.k. in a ''request for comment'' but not the way it was done here and now. [[User:Earl King Jr.|Earl King Jr.]] ([[User talk:Earl King Jr.|talk]]) 00:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
:This ''vote'' seems phony. And I protest characterizing another editor as being ''Since [[User:Arthur Rubin]] appears to have lost his mind, I'm going to attempt to move on here.'' That sucks User Equazcion. You are using the same tactics of trash talking that Nightscream has used of demeaning language and intimidation. Something is really wrong here also with dredging up people, from who knows where, to throw in some ''vote'' when they are not even involved, that would be o.k. in a ''request for comment'' but not the way it was done here and now. [[User:Earl King Jr.|Earl King Jr.]] ([[User talk:Earl King Jr.|talk]]) 00:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
||