This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As you can see in the history of this article, it seems that NPOV is not being met. The user who has been contributing to this article, 99.244.13.233, appears unable to be neutral (others should look at this user's talk page). The grammar also needs to be cleaned up. -- WiccaIrish 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
99.244.13.233 / Jordanjames: Could you please list what you feel is needed in the article and perhaps we can come to a compromise. It needs to be neutral and something Douglas had said. For example, I don't recall him calling Jolie a "racist" or recommending Sophie Okonedo in particular. However, you can add something along the lines of "Douglas states ' Jolie consistently portrays herself as a Hollywood liberal who is against racism ' and that ' her superficial insensitivity to the plight of black women suggests an unwillingness to be challenged about her own values. '" -- WiccaIrish 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
When this article is unprotected, could someone add the fact that Douglas is openly gay, with the reference:
Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen very little effort on this Talk Page to resolve the controversy that instigated the edit warring in July. If edit warring resumes, I will re-protect the article. Please attempt to resolve controversies on this Talk Page rather than by edit warring. -- Richard 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just restored the citation request following the statement that Douglas' book "reached an international audience in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Four times this tag as been replaced with a reference to the author's website in which he himself makes this claim. The source runs counter to Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability, in particular the sub-section 'Self-published sources (online and paper)' which states "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", and the sub-section on 'Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves', which states that material "from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... it is not unduly self-serving." I've found no third-party source supporting the subject's claim. Victoriagirl ( talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
For the third time in two days, I'm reversing edits by 99.227.97.230. Another user, Blehfu, has reversed 99.227.97.230's edits during the same period. As 99.227.97.230 hasn't provided edit summaries, I cannot explain the reasoning behind his or her edits. Wishing to avoid a furthering of this back and forth, I offer the following expansion on my past edit summaries:
I’m returning the primary sources template, which has been removed with no reason given. I’m adding the original research template as I think doing a Worldcat search and tabulating the results constitutes original research. Furthermore, as not all libraries are included in Worldcat searches, the result is anything but complete. 99.242.182.87 ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As you can see in the history of this article, it seems that NPOV is not being met. The user who has been contributing to this article, 99.244.13.233, appears unable to be neutral (others should look at this user's talk page). The grammar also needs to be cleaned up. -- WiccaIrish 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
99.244.13.233 / Jordanjames: Could you please list what you feel is needed in the article and perhaps we can come to a compromise. It needs to be neutral and something Douglas had said. For example, I don't recall him calling Jolie a "racist" or recommending Sophie Okonedo in particular. However, you can add something along the lines of "Douglas states ' Jolie consistently portrays herself as a Hollywood liberal who is against racism ' and that ' her superficial insensitivity to the plight of black women suggests an unwillingness to be challenged about her own values. '" -- WiccaIrish 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
When this article is unprotected, could someone add the fact that Douglas is openly gay, with the reference:
Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen very little effort on this Talk Page to resolve the controversy that instigated the edit warring in July. If edit warring resumes, I will re-protect the article. Please attempt to resolve controversies on this Talk Page rather than by edit warring. -- Richard 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just restored the citation request following the statement that Douglas' book "reached an international audience in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Four times this tag as been replaced with a reference to the author's website in which he himself makes this claim. The source runs counter to Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability, in particular the sub-section 'Self-published sources (online and paper)' which states "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", and the sub-section on 'Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves', which states that material "from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... it is not unduly self-serving." I've found no third-party source supporting the subject's claim. Victoriagirl ( talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
For the third time in two days, I'm reversing edits by 99.227.97.230. Another user, Blehfu, has reversed 99.227.97.230's edits during the same period. As 99.227.97.230 hasn't provided edit summaries, I cannot explain the reasoning behind his or her edits. Wishing to avoid a furthering of this back and forth, I offer the following expansion on my past edit summaries:
I’m returning the primary sources template, which has been removed with no reason given. I’m adding the original research template as I think doing a Worldcat search and tabulating the results constitutes original research. Furthermore, as not all libraries are included in Worldcat searches, the result is anything but complete. 99.242.182.87 ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)