Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) →Restructure: BLP policies still apply; article should be deleted if constantly vandalized with unsourced material;will complain on BLP violation next time unsourced negative info added |
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) →Restructure: reminder if IL has defamation of dead law editor inserting unsourced defamatory info still could be sued |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
::Thanks for looking at this after I brought it to WP:BLPN. However, do note that [[Wikipedia:Blp#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased]] reads: ''This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.'' |
::Thanks for looking at this after I brought it to WP:BLPN. However, do note that [[Wikipedia:Blp#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased]] reads: ''This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.'' |
||
::Therefore I am going to revert again to my short version leaving in new info. If the individual who keeps putting in unsourced info does it again, I will both file a relevant complaint of BLP violation and call for the article to be deleted entirely. Let's conform to policy. Thanks. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
::Therefore I am going to revert again to my short version leaving in new info. If the individual who keeps putting in unsourced info does it again, I will both file a relevant complaint of BLP violation and call for the article to be deleted entirely. Let's conform to policy. Thanks. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::I removed BLPdispute tag cause overly long explanation above got me confused - however, I'll still complain somewhere if all that defamatory UNsourced info goes in. (Defame away if you have WP:RS). |
|||
:::I actually rewrote the policy to be shorter with the main point in the first line. But back 2007 tag since there is unsourced info in there still that might be inaccurate, but at least not controversial/questionable. Note that some states do have defamation of the dead laws and if IL is one, whoever put all that defamatory info in there could be personally sued. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Cutting unexplained Polish language links == |
== Cutting unexplained Polish language links == |
Revision as of 16:17, 2 February 2009
Illinois Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Chicago Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
2006 comments
If someone disputes the neutrality of this article please state your reasons here before adding a POV tag. --Milicz 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much all I know of him is what I read in the Tribune, but some of this looks a little toned down, like "Moskal erroneously said Emanuel..." Doesn't "erroneously" kind of imply an honest mistake, where most people might come to a different conclusion? Fan-1967 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it means falsely, that what he said about Emanuel was not true.--Milicz 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What he said about Emanuel was a flat-out lie, and everyone knew it. But that's the least of this article's problems. Much of it reads like an essay, with personal analysis, rather than straight facts. For example, the entire paragraph that starts "The scholars of communism claim that.." has no place in an encyclopedic article at all. Gamaliel was right: This article needs a look by some fresh eyes. Maybe a WP:RFC would be a good idea. Fan-1967 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it means falsely, that what he said about Emanuel was not true.--Milicz 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2008 Changes made per WP:BLP
I guess I came across this looking at Rahm Emanuel article, but it was so horrendously filled with Unsourced libelous and negative comments - not to mention all the stuff about how great the last leader of the group was (totally irrelevant) - that my WikiHat just popped up and I had to clean it up. Per WP:BLP I can and will revert back to that format repeatedly. If you have negative info about Mr. M. you want to share, fine. Just make sure it comes from a WP:Reliable source (Click link for info), preferably some news article linked on the internet. Two or three sentences on his predecessor might be appropriate, but that's about it. Just search Mr. M's name on a search engine and you'll probably find lots of news stories. Private web sites saying nasty things about him don't count ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You know instead of deleting entire sections and claiming libel you might actually want to edit this article, if not then stay out. Plenty was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles, if you're unhappy with the article fix it, don't white wash it. --Milicz (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works in any wikipedia article. Unsourced material can be removed. If you want to put it in, source it and then put it in. In BLP especially editors are urged to be alert for possibly false unsourced info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." - dated 2007. Any interested editor has had over a year to source the article, if desired. No interested editor has done so. The material has been challenged and removed. This is not "white washing". The deletions are "sourced" by the warning at the top of the article. It is unfortunate that no one has been interested enough to cite the "Plenty...." that "... was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles", but no editor has had that interest.sinneed (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article, I think the large-scale deletions need to be made, or SUBSTANTIAL corrections and citations made. There is indeed much out there, but it is conflicting. I can see why no one has taken on the task. Since this individual is no longer living, it need not follow wp:BLP throughout, though since some of its subjects ARE alive, their information needs extra attention.sinneed (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." - dated 2007. Any interested editor has had over a year to source the article, if desired. No interested editor has done so. The material has been challenged and removed. This is not "white washing". The deletions are "sourced" by the warning at the top of the article. It is unfortunate that no one has been interested enough to cite the "Plenty...." that "... was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles", but no editor has had that interest.sinneed (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
1 week from today I plan to come back and restore the removal of the unsourced content. If any editor cares enough about the article to source it, remove the OR an PoV, I will certainly respect their work, of course. But this article is a mess, and has been flagged as requiring improvement since 2007. I don't think a week is going to help. sinneed (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Totally Disputed
I have added the totallydisputed flag to the article. I leave the others, because their dates are earlier, and I feel that record should not be lost. Much of this is OR, some if PoV and OR, some could be sourced, but the sources will require careful handling, as they conflict. Research is hampered because so very many sites took this article as valid and have copied it, cited it, and quoted it... and that was a mistake. I caution any editor to be very wary of many sources that will pop up on a quick search. That said, while http://www.searchgleaner.com/cloud/index.php?words=Edward+Moskal contains a copy of this (or this is a copy of it, which seems unlikely), it does have a rich list of possible sources an interested editor might study and possibly find useful.sinneed (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- A very messy article indeed. Near as I can figure, Moskal was not a real major player in much at all, and his main notability is his "anti-semitism" charged by some. No way of finding out if any Poles had ever been on the US delegation to the UN, but I suspect some were for sure. Lots of florid prose -- will you support some weeding in this garden? Collect (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is totally disputed? His obituary in the largest and most respected Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, began with words "Know as a virulent anti-Semite", I'm not quite sure who disputes Moskal's antisemitism. I added links to the sections to support the statements.--Milicz (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know that anyone is disputing that he was an anti-semite. The article contains a great deal of wp:PoV,wp:OR"he never...". The flag simply means that some of us believe the article has things in it that aren't true, and things that are presented in eithe a pro or con light, rather than as a balanced or neutral view. Some of the worst chunks have been cut out already.sinneed (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Important points about citations, external links
1st, the citation must actually support the words to which it is attached. If it does not, this is A Very Bad Thing.
2nd, the citations need some kind of description of why they are there. with the cite web tool, that would be a "title=" item usually. With simple inline refs, just put a space after the URL and say what it is
3rd, the External links each need a note added to them, either after the URL or just after the closing ], explaining what it is.
sinneed (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I added descriptions to those sites I could, and notes for the others. A number of these citations fail wp:EL... no fee sites, no sites requiring registration. The ones for papers that have enough information can be turned into print citations.
There was one anti-Israel/anti-Judaism site (holywar dot org) that I simply removed because the wp:EL failure was egregious as I interpret it.sinneed (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fee sites ares imply archived articles, I guess you can turn them into print citations, but many of them had the information cite din the first free paragraph.--Milicz (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well then the defacto standard of Wikipedia will be the elimination of content instead of expansion of content, I found all of the proper cites via Google Archive search, but if the bar is set so high as for me to find the proper print citations then by all means just start pruning what was an informative article into a worthless two sentence bio-piece. --Milicz (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A possible source for some of the offensive quotes: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28616.html. I don't know them but possibly an RS?sinneed (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
treasurer section
As it reads now, it looks like Moskal was objecting to Moskal? I think something got confused here perhaps? Collect (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, but I don't know if I broke it or if it was already broken. I expect to fix it if I ever find a source... or kill it if I can't. If I broke it, I am sorry. :)
Nope, I broke it... some members objected, and the president said he could wine and dine whomever he chose.sinneed (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Restructure
I light-heartedly hope the new structure will lend itself to both expanding and tightening this article. I think this was an important and controversial figure, and deserves a better article. I don't plan to get into the anti-Semiticism, as I have no desire to have an edit war. I want to focus on his life, the PNA and the PAC. The PAC an PNA articles are both also weak, so I think I can expand all 3.
Any suggestions? Heh, or of course, wp:Be Bold. :)
sinneed (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this after I brought it to WP:BLPN. However, do note that Wikipedia:Blp#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased reads: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.
- Therefore I am going to revert again to my short version leaving in new info. If the individual who keeps putting in unsourced info does it again, I will both file a relevant complaint of BLP violation and call for the article to be deleted entirely. Let's conform to policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I removed BLPdispute tag cause overly long explanation above got me confused - however, I'll still complain somewhere if all that defamatory UNsourced info goes in. (Defame away if you have WP:RS).
- I actually rewrote the policy to be shorter with the main point in the first line. But back 2007 tag since there is unsourced info in there still that might be inaccurate, but at least not controversial/questionable. Note that some states do have defamation of the dead laws and if IL is one, whoever put all that defamatory info in there could be personally sued. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Cutting unexplained Polish language links
- Polish language site, needs description.
- Polish language site, needs description.
- Polish language site, needs description.
- Polish language site, needs description.
- Polish language site, needs description.
- Polish language site, needs description.
Leaving them here for easy restoral.sinneed (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)