The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jayjg returns to his POV pushing, on I/P topics, of course
Herschelkrustofsky
post Fri 16th September 2011, 10:40am
Post #41


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



IMO, nix on the annex. This sort of POV warfare is a central problem at WP; there are going to be certain personalities, like Jayjg, that exemplify everything that is wrong about the place and will occupy a prominent position in WP criticism. The annex is more for minor WikiMMORPGism that spills over into the Review.

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 15th September 2011, 7:47pm) *

I think the whole thread belongs in the Annex.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Fri 16th September 2011, 12:33pm
Post #42


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nableezy @ Wed 14th September 2011, 6:02pm) *

But attribute to who? All the sources listed say that the "international community" considers settlements illegal. Do you think that the sentence should be:
QUOTE
According to Adam Roberts, Marco Pertile, Daphne Barak-Erez, Catriona Drew, and the International Labour Organization [Those are the five sources currently cited], the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law.
What if I add the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, AFP, AP, and a host of other news organizations that each explicitly say that the "international community" considers the settlements illegal under international law? Should they also be attributed.

Nah, of course not. By attribution I meant attribution to the UN Security Council / General Assembly, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and so forth, listing all the various international bodies that have declared the settlements illegal explicitly in the lead, with a primary and secondary source for each.

It's still something you can do if the sentence is challenged again, as it would remove any remotely plausible basis for argument. At any rate, the controversy seems to have died down right now, and the lead sentence looks fine to me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 5 13, 9:37pm