→Removal of POV tag: Removing my comments. I did not give you permission to move my comments to this talk page. |
Undid revision 504692438 by Viriditas (talk) re-use of licensed content, editor's sigs redacted by request |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Removal of POV tag == |
== Removal of POV tag == |
||
Moved from my talk page as per [[Wikipedia#Content_licensing]]. Other editor signatures re-dacted plus minor fixes.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 03:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:STICK]] and [[WP:POINT]] --[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967#top|talk]]) 01:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | The article is about the incident, not the gun debate. If 10,000 RS say it involves the gun debate then put a section in the gun debate article and link to it. No one in the article is saying the the gun debate is not affected by it so your [[WP:NPOV]] tag is [[WP:POINT]] |
||
⚫ | |||
Please do not remove the POV dispute tag on [[2012 Aurora shooting]] until the dispute is resolved on the talk page and on the POV noticeboard. The tag was not added due to "POINT" or "STICK" behavior. The tag was added per best practices outlined by [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Please review the talk page discussion. You will find that consensus has not yet formed to close out this dispute, nor have any uninvolved editors discussed it on the NPOV noticeboard. Please be patient. |
|||
::I'm sorry, but you clearly do ''not'' understand what STICK and POINT refer to here. Have you ever read [[WP:NPOV]]? |
|||
:::I count six users who have noted the absence of relevant gun law and gun control information: {{user|Martinevans123}}, {{user|213.168.117.36}}, {{user|173.74.10.29}}, {{user|HiLo48}}, {{user|BritishWatcher}}, and myself, {{user|Viriditas}}. A new RFC will bring in more. |
|||
⚫ | The article is about the incident, not the gun debate. If 10,000 RS say it involves the gun debate then put a section in the gun debate article and link to it. No one in the article is saying the the gun debate is not affected by it so your [[WP:NPOV]] tag is [[WP:POINT]] BS so please [[Wikipedia:STICK]]! Have you even bothered to improve the gun debate article or the incredibly lame gun law article? If you would spend more time improving the project instead of pissing everyone off in every dispute forum you can find then we may gain a little more respect for you.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967#top|talk]]) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:That's not how [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] works, nor am I talking about any "gun debate". An encyclopedic article on the shooting covers all major aspects, including topics about Colorado gun law that made it possible and the reaction to those laws in context of the shooting. If 10,000 reliable sources discuss this, then ''we'' discuss it in the article. You can't simply say "I DON'T LIKE IT" and argue we should move it to another article. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am neither looking for your "respect" nor do I require it. Your actions in this regard have been completely transparent. You're pushing a POV and attempting to override NPOV in the process. NPOV "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Is this making sense? Adhering to NPOV ''is'' improving the project. |
|||
From: [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight]]. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to [[Wikipedia:Recentism|recent events]] that may be in the [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper|news]]. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967#top|talk]]) 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:And now, give an example of how discussing gun violence and gun laws in an article about a violent gun attack is "undue weight"? Good luck, my friend! |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Wow, you've completely misunderstood what forking is all about. Adding sources that discuss Colorado gun violence and gun laws in terms of the Aurora shooting is ''not'' forking. In fact, ''you'' are the one who is advocating forking material ''you don't like'' into a different article. In any case, we have expert sources like [[Robert Spitzer (political scientist)|Robert Spitzer]] at the State University of New York at Cortland who has commented on the subject of the Colorado shooting and gun laws. Are you saying we shouldn't cite expert sources on this subject? On what policy do you base this? And are you also saying we shouldn't discuss the lax Colorado gun laws that made it possible for the shooter to carry out this crime? That's strange, since we have dozens of reliable sources discussing this. I'm sorry, but you cannot override NPOV. |
|||
Moving discussion to [[Gun laws in Colorado]] and [[Gun politics in the United States]] to prevent [[WP:CONTENTFORKING]].--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967#top|talk]]) 02:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
Moving discussion to [[Gun laws in Colorado]] and [[Gun politics in the United States]] to prevent [[WP:CONTENTFORKING]].--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967#top|talk]]) 02:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Wrong, again. Best practice encoded by our guidelines is ''always'' to ''ask'' the other editor involved in the relevant discussion if they wouldn't mind moving the discussion. In this case, I mind and I would ask that you do not move this discussion to that talk page because it has ''nothing'' to do with this curent discussion. I am ''not'' discussing gun laws in Colorado and gun politics in the U.S. I am discussing what expert sources like [[Robert Spitzer (political scientist)|Robert Spitzer]], professor of political science at State University of New York at Cortland, are discussing, such as the availability of weapons by Holmes under current Colorado law, which is entirely relevant to the article on the Aurora shooting. In fact, I can't think of a single argument that would make it irrelevant. So no, you don't have my permission to move this discussion. Further, you still don't show any sign of understanding what content forking is. |
Revision as of 03:34, 29 July 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removal of POV tag
Moved from my talk page as per Wikipedia#Content_licensing. Other editor signatures re-dacted plus minor fixes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove the POV dispute tag on 2012 Aurora shooting until the dispute is resolved on the talk page and on the POV noticeboard. The tag was not added due to "POINT" or "STICK" behavior. The tag was added per best practices outlined by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Please review the talk page discussion. You will find that consensus has not yet formed to close out this dispute, nor have any uninvolved editors discussed it on the NPOV noticeboard. Please be patient.
- I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand what STICK and POINT refer to here. Have you ever read WP:NPOV?
- I count six users who have noted the absence of relevant gun law and gun control information: Martinevans123 (talk · contribs), 213.168.117.36 (talk · contribs), 173.74.10.29 (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs), BritishWatcher (talk · contribs), and myself, Viriditas (talk · contribs). A new RFC will bring in more.
- I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand what STICK and POINT refer to here. Have you ever read WP:NPOV?
The article is about the incident, not the gun debate. If 10,000 RS say it involves the gun debate then put a section in the gun debate article and link to it. No one in the article is saying the the gun debate is not affected by it so your WP:NPOV tag is WP:POINT BS so please Wikipedia:STICK! Have you even bothered to improve the gun debate article or the incredibly lame gun law article? If you would spend more time improving the project instead of pissing everyone off in every dispute forum you can find then we may gain a little more respect for you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how NPOV works, nor am I talking about any "gun debate". An encyclopedic article on the shooting covers all major aspects, including topics about Colorado gun law that made it possible and the reaction to those laws in context of the shooting. If 10,000 reliable sources discuss this, then we discuss it in the article. You can't simply say "I DON'T LIKE IT" and argue we should move it to another article. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am neither looking for your "respect" nor do I require it. Your actions in this regard have been completely transparent. You're pushing a POV and attempting to override NPOV in the process. NPOV "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Is this making sense? Adhering to NPOV is improving the project.
From: Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- And now, give an example of how discussing gun violence and gun laws in an article about a violent gun attack is "undue weight"? Good luck, my friend!
How about a policy! "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, you've completely misunderstood what forking is all about. Adding sources that discuss Colorado gun violence and gun laws in terms of the Aurora shooting is not forking. In fact, you are the one who is advocating forking material you don't like into a different article. In any case, we have expert sources like Robert Spitzer at the State University of New York at Cortland who has commented on the subject of the Colorado shooting and gun laws. Are you saying we shouldn't cite expert sources on this subject? On what policy do you base this? And are you also saying we shouldn't discuss the lax Colorado gun laws that made it possible for the shooter to carry out this crime? That's strange, since we have dozens of reliable sources discussing this. I'm sorry, but you cannot override NPOV.
Moving discussion to Gun laws in Colorado and Gun politics in the United States to prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, again. Best practice encoded by our guidelines is always to ask the other editor involved in the relevant discussion if they wouldn't mind moving the discussion. In this case, I mind and I would ask that you do not move this discussion to that talk page because it has nothing to do with this curent discussion. I am not discussing gun laws in Colorado and gun politics in the U.S. I am discussing what expert sources like Robert Spitzer, professor of political science at State University of New York at Cortland, are discussing, such as the availability of weapons by Holmes under current Colorado law, which is entirely relevant to the article on the Aurora shooting. In fact, I can't think of a single argument that would make it irrelevant. So no, you don't have my permission to move this discussion. Further, you still don't show any sign of understanding what content forking is.