User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2016/August

NPOV issues

TFD, I saw your posting to the Talk:Nazi gun control theory. You wrote: ..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I paraphrased it as one must "establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources." You provided a link to it above.[1] I also saw your response to my posting at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎#Does NPOV apply to gun articles?. Thanks for participating there. However the point you made was pretty much the same point I was raising there, although one deals more with facts than opinions. However WP:NPOV says that neutrality also must be maintained in article structure. It seems to me that if reliable secondary sources devote a lot of space to something, then we should cover it at least a little bit. Am I wrong? Felsic2 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your the original post. Secondary sources about a crime routinely mention the type of weapon used. That does not establish weight for an article about the weapon. Similary if sources say it occurred in the U.S., that does not establish weight for inclusion in the article about the U.S. However, if sources about the weapon routinely mention crimes used in their commission, then it meets due weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, in this case there are 14 secondary sources about the weapon and the crime. That's more than mention anything else about the gun. As for what happens "routinely" in other gun articles, well, I'm not sure how that's a factor. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton

Hi TFD. Srich seems to have left a stray hat template on the page when he reinsinuated the smear about Sec'y Clinton. This had the effect of hiding your recent post there. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Case filed

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain.23Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision_discussion

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)