Content deleted Content added
EmilCioran1195 (talk | contribs) |
blatant bias |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::::The two cited (conservative) sources for that statement discuss how Project Veritas has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and resulted in, yes, widespread mockery. You're welcome to propose alternative paraphrasing. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we have to quote sources directly; to the contrary, we are encouraged to paraphrase and sum up what the sources say. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
::::::The two cited (conservative) sources for that statement discuss how Project Veritas has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and resulted in, yes, widespread mockery. You're welcome to propose alternative paraphrasing. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we have to quote sources directly; to the contrary, we are encouraged to paraphrase and sum up what the sources say. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I did try, and you deleted it. Repeatedly. Again, you're being deliberately misleading - as you are on the other article you've followed me to - the sources for the statement don't say anything approximating "widespread mockery", and to say that the usage of that phrase is simply "paraphrasing", is utterly false. [[User:EmilCioran1195|EmilCioran1195]] ([[User talk:EmilCioran1195|talk]]) 02:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::I did try, and you deleted it. Repeatedly. Again, you're being deliberately misleading - as you are on the other article you've followed me to - the sources for the statement don't say anything approximating "widespread mockery", and to say that the usage of that phrase is simply "paraphrasing", is utterly false. [[User:EmilCioran1195|EmilCioran1195]] ([[User talk:EmilCioran1195|talk]]) 02:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Concur with [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]]. Article is in need of overhauling, because it is blatantly leftist-biased as it currently reads. Unfortunately that is par for the course with many tightly-controlled political articles on this site, mostly as a result of which sources the '[[hive mind]]' arbitrarily deems reliable/unreliable, but partly also because of a small but diligent minority of partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs. - [[User:JGabbard|JGabbard]] ([[User talk:JGabbard|talk]]) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:28, 19 August 2019
Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Article reads like a hatchet job. Needs more neutral wording and sources.
Can some disinterested, objective, apolitical editors please assist me in making this article more encyclopedic? It reads like a screed right now. A user called "Grayfell" is objecting to any edits in this direction... EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The wording: "The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery" is, unsurprisingly, not supported by the sources. For the record, I became interested in this "Project" after reading about "bias" at Google. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you disagree with the reliable sources cited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't. I'm sorry you've misunderstood the substance of my concern. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- The cited sources expressly support the statements; if you want to change them, you'll need to get consensus here on the talk page first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, they don't, as I explicitly stated in my edit summaries. Do I need to quote the entire articles here for you to admit that the words "widespread mockery", for instance, do not appear in them? Are you simply lying or have you not bothered to actually read the sources you're arguing about? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- The two cited (conservative) sources for that statement discuss how Project Veritas has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and resulted in, yes, widespread mockery. You're welcome to propose alternative paraphrasing. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we have to quote sources directly; to the contrary, we are encouraged to paraphrase and sum up what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did try, and you deleted it. Repeatedly. Again, you're being deliberately misleading - as you are on the other article you've followed me to - the sources for the statement don't say anything approximating "widespread mockery", and to say that the usage of that phrase is simply "paraphrasing", is utterly false. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with NorthBySouthBaranof. Article is in need of overhauling, because it is blatantly leftist-biased as it currently reads. Unfortunately that is par for the course with many tightly-controlled political articles on this site, mostly as a result of which sources the 'hive mind' arbitrarily deems reliable/unreliable, but partly also because of a small but diligent minority of partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs. - JGabbard (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did try, and you deleted it. Repeatedly. Again, you're being deliberately misleading - as you are on the other article you've followed me to - the sources for the statement don't say anything approximating "widespread mockery", and to say that the usage of that phrase is simply "paraphrasing", is utterly false. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The two cited (conservative) sources for that statement discuss how Project Veritas has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and resulted in, yes, widespread mockery. You're welcome to propose alternative paraphrasing. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we have to quote sources directly; to the contrary, we are encouraged to paraphrase and sum up what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, they don't, as I explicitly stated in my edit summaries. Do I need to quote the entire articles here for you to admit that the words "widespread mockery", for instance, do not appear in them? Are you simply lying or have you not bothered to actually read the sources you're arguing about? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- The cited sources expressly support the statements; if you want to change them, you'll need to get consensus here on the talk page first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't. I'm sorry you've misunderstood the substance of my concern. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you disagree with the reliable sources cited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)