This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I've again taken a whack at weeding out a lot of the needless detail from the you-know-where section. I do share the concerns expressed elsewhere on the page that the NPOV tag should be addressed clearly and directly. It sounds like Polanski has statements that he felt the alleged victim wasn't so innocent - or something similar - is that correct? If so what is the proposed additional content and ref to be added to convey his POV? p.s. extra points for presenting such without any mark-up, digressions, and using less than 500 or so words. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
BIG PICTURE: The Roman Polanski case is NPOV dispute writ large—"the world" is arguing about this, and so it would be supremely odd for that to not be manifest in Wikipedia. I.E., NPOV dispute is the "natural" state of this matter at this time. No one should be surprised (or particularly concerned:) by that. The tag acknowledges the fact.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion process took much time to put in every edit that is in the current version. Its needs the same care in its removal, or additions, which Proofreader77 has started a process to address. Please address in process. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi's compression yielded a summary of ~400 words (~2500 characters). Since we do not assume that section to be wrapped in plastic, may we reach a general agreement that the summary of Roman Polanski sexual abuse case in this article should be no more than 500 words? (NOTE: At some point a structure other than straight timeline coverage might be warranted, but will leave that discussion to significantly later than today:)
If the idea of 500-words-or-less (or 400, 425, 450, 475:) is agreeable, I would like to do (numbered line) analysis of the Benjiboi version, and clarify where/why there may be NPOV issues to resolve. (Fear not, the contentious lines are few—but the contention at those few points may be significant.:) SO:
(if so, then step 2, a numbered line clarification of any NPOV issue remaining) Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The gross vandalism of this article is simply continuing. A NPOV Dispute was opened. We are still waiting on what specifics are in queston. They have not been raised. It is not proper to just edit out details that were place in via the entire concess process of discussion. There was basis by discussion of where we were. No it has come to wholesale hacking...or whacking, whichever term you want to use.
As far a a limitation on words, this is completely abatray and not called for. Its like picking something out of your backside and presenting as golden, it still stinks. Look at the section for "The Fearless Vampire Killers" its half the length of the sexual abuse section. And it has its own entire page detailing it out. You want to word cut how about there.
What is being eliminated is sourced information, for no reason. If people want to object to it for NPOV they have the opportunity. but as it stand now, these deletions are being carried out on a rush. Accuracy and approprib9itly are important, counting words is not. Either use the NPOV dispute to raise issue or not. But it will remain improper to wholes delete contributions that have been made over weeks time. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Either use the NPOV Dispute Process and discuss needs for changes adding or deleting or don't do it. The content was built upon consensus and its being removed for the reason of an arbitrary word goal of few. Raise concerns in discussion first before hacking away. We are getting near the point where the entire entry should just be handed over Dalton, Polanski's attorney. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
An experienced editor dropping in from out of the clouds and compressing (whenever they get a feeling it should be done) is a very unexpected (and upsetting) event. BUT if there was a practical rule of thumb of how large is appropriate, then there would be less a feeling of arbitrary (improper) power being inflicted on a lot of work done by editors who didn't expect it to all get undone ... apparently by whim).
NOTE: I have already written 100K words arguing with TomBaker321 ... and simply would like, in this case, to be able to say: this is the size thing consensus feels appropriate.
BOTTOM LINE: Word limits as a general rule, no. Temporary heuristic for a highly contentious section (which has its own article which is being ignored to expand the main article, yes. I.E., In 500 words or less ... summarize this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that the 500 word goal is notappropriate. Your appraisal is wrong. Please address any changes in the NPOV Dispute Working Group. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(NOTE: New subtopic of NPOV dispute ...) Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Current version updates is the version most similar to prior to NPOV Dispute. This version hammered out over weeks is near fully complete to what should be said, it is not length and sticks to the significant moments and facts.
FOR ANY CHANGES TO THE DISPUTED SECTION PLACE THEM HERE FIRST.
The original NPOV Dispute was not raised with any specifics, so this method will address concerns about improper form of the NPOV Dispute Flag. We have seen massive deletions of content that was worked very hard for inclusion with NPOV sourcing etc, only to single users "weed-whack" the entry and say "ta-da" lets remove the flag now.
Any revisions done, without going through the above process are subject to removal. Please if there is any other way of dealing with this offer it up. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A NPOV Dispute was raised without giving specific details of what was disputed, then about 6 sentences were removed for claims of length only, now that the information is gone, people think the NPOV Dispute tag should be removed. "People" referring to a close group of editors. I removed my opposition to the NPOV Dispute because I believe that advocacy editing is being done under a banner of NPOV. I thought an orderly Dispute Process is Mandated for the NPOV tag. Instead what happened is just a single editor removing information, and claiming it was done for word length. So instead of a process we got a ripping out of information. My attempt in putting in this section was simply to try to follow an orderly NPOV Dispute Process, which would address the original taggers concerns. The NPOV dispute process is not being worked with objections and responses. My attempt to go to process seems failed. I asked for alternatives to resolving the NPOV Dispute with fairness, see above, none were offered -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
(Link to subtopic in NPOV dispute) Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Tombaker321, Off2riorob, Dream Focus, and Banjeboi seem to be against the NPOV tag, while only Proofreader77 is for it. To clarify everyone's position, so we can form a consensus, how many people believe the NPOV should be there?
e.g. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
While new editors are not to be treated harshly, when they behave disruptively (which is the point we have reached now), it should be made clear that we are no longer in the realm of content dispute, but behavior. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Pardon me, if I don't think a roll call vote for sockpuppetry is warranted. | ” |
These are selected keypoints in order to remove confusion, and get the process moving again, since we have a New Dispute.
Requirements of a NPOV Dispute WP:NPOVD
There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
How to initiate an NPOV debate
If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies
Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The naturally high contention of an article like this is perhaps not the best place to get ones bearings in Wikipedia, but such is the case, so perhaps some uninvolved editors will guide the new editor to the appropriate forums to address their concerns. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's move forward -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader77 has created a new NPOV Dispute Flag for the Sexual assault case.
Procedures
(The Tagger needs to do this in this section, without circular reference to previous talk, they must be stated here, and clearly, presented for a first time reader self contained here) -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[Notice] of talk page disruption Further discussion has been temporarily delayed by continuing talk page disruption to remove the NPOV tag. See:
For specific sentences at issue
For support for the tag see:
For BLP issue of NPOV of Sexual assault case (summary) see
Bottom line for the moment: Much of my time is currently being taken up by Tombaker321's repeating his assertion that there is not sufficient talk page support for the tag. That is ridiculous on its face. When the disruption ceases, we will address the NPOV problems in sentences 2, 7, 9, 10, 12 as previously noted (amidst all the endless, and yes, disruptive, agitation to remove the tag by Tombaker321.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Old
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Wikipedia editors should survey Wikipedia policy (especially
WP:NPOVD) and prepare to make arguments based on that.
{WPP.002.13} ____ One fact that's missing we'll close this verse on:
(I.E., Dear sonnet scoffers: Apparently the sonnets contained something actionable. lol) Initial discussion/comments re NPOV dispute
So kindly do that, as direct and specific as possible. Dream Focus 09:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Response by Tombaker321 re NPOV disputeRESPONSE 1. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. 2. There are no objections to the current content on this Wikipedia entry. i.e. Nothing about what is shown and sourced is being disputed. 3. Cyptic circular commentary obfuscates the issues which, if any, need resolution. Specific requests for addition or deletion, or for whether they show bias need to be raised. They have not. 4. The editor as means to challenge NPOV wants to add that 'Ritterband was removed from the case" this entry has not been attempted to made directly of via discussion pages. I believe there would be not objection to this fact, as it is certainly a fact. Instead of disputing the entire entry, it would be far simpler to just add this specific fact and see to whether any other editor has an objection. (fwiw, I would have no objection to this in conception, and most likely in execution) 5. Whatever the editor is raising about perspective of "prosecutor Roger Gunson and Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton" is unknown to specificity. As a matter of legal fact, the 1203.03 90 day diagnostic, was available for the judge. This 1203.03 diagnostic was never a sentence, and the sentencing of Polanski never occurred. Because the prosecution does not dismiss the other charges related to the plea deal until sentencing is completed, all the charges against Polanski remain unresolved. These are legal facts. Much of which has been omitted solely for brevity. That is information. The legal system has discreetly defined movements. As to what the editor would like to have withing the Wikipedia entry as far as perspective, is completely unstated at any time within discussion. There is no reason to believe the normal discussion process would not work. 6. Rejected by the normal editorial discussion process, this editor wants to put within the Wikipedia entry that the 13 year old victim of the crime that Polanski plead guilty to, had the appears of being 16 or 18. The editor does not want to use the photographic evidence as a basis for this claim. Moreover, the editor said that the reason for the inclusion for this information was to mitigate in the readers mind, the impression of what a 44 year man did to a 13 year old girl. The editor then states that the Polanski asserted "she looked older", as means for support of adding the victims appearance in the entry. When challenged in the discussion pages his claims the editor did not produce any evidence or citations, and simply ignored the questions to the editor, and said he would handle it in "due course". More Importantly:.......regarding above item 6: Polanski responded in his pleading of guilt to the offense, that he understood here age to be 13, and that he understood her age at the time of the incident. Thus mitigation in the readers mind is hardly called for because Polanaski's admission of guilt accepted, is the record of fact, within materials already cited in this entry.
7. For any items that the editor wants included or removed the normal discussion pages have been available, and remain available. These requests can be opened as specific topics for review in the discussion pages. Overall summary of response:
Discussion
For the rest of us who have no idea what this is all about can it be stated clearly in, like, a few sentences? Thank you in advance. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We have waited for clarification of what is at dispute of NPOV is about. It has not been stated. This topic and dispute seem to have become some sort of plaything. Sonnets being written and then hidden, and being offered as substantiation for a dispute. WTF? Here is some of the commentary that is being offered as the basis of the NPOV dispute. And I quote:
Seriously WTF? All of the above quotes are being used as part of the basis for raising a NPOV dispute. But where is the substance? There are no specific issues being raised at being in dispute, they are simply absent. See:
The above is not present, no specific issues are raised, and the NPOV dispute tag is erected solely on the opinion that its not neutral, the tag was used as first resort, and as a lever. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The management of this dispute of horrible, without specifics being offered by the tagger for what is disputed. Because the problem has grown worse. I have reset the version to basically at the point of when this dispute was started. This restores Proofreader77s additon of Vanatter's appraisal of Polanski. At a minimum I would think the dispute should include discussion prior to additions and deletions. The restored current version is actually livable for me. But I now restore my objection to the last edit -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV dispute status after condensing of summary (6 Nov/Benjiboi/400w)
Prior to the NPOV dispute there was a baseline, that baseline was created with discussion in talk. Now that original has been edited, with whole sections removed, without any reasoning given. A close knit saying that the NPOV flag can not be removed. Now the originator Proofreader77 (the tagger), saying the NPOV dispute applies to the new version only. This NPOV Dispute is off the rails. My attempts to get it back on track, have failed also. No specific lines have been been called out as "not NPOV". This deleting of data without cause or justification, under guise of a NPOV Dispute, is a just train wreck. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Tag removed/reinstatedThe POV Dispute Flag is RemovedI have removed the NPOV flag for the following reasons.
If a new tag is to be put up, numbers 10 and 11 are not options, they are requirements, and need to be done clearly. To raise a dispute flag, the editor must give enough information to address and resolve, its not to be used as a blank to to satisfy an editors opinion. Point out the problem, say why, offer solution, solicit feedback -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) NPOV dispute tag reinstated
NPOV dispute tag reinstated (2/etc)
[Reference] Difs of removals
DR documentation - Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Ongoing: The NPOV dispute states nothing Specific [Response: misrepresentation]
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (no response to
(no response to uncivil demands and misrepresentations. See this diff of documentation of disruption on talk page and
Enough drama. See sentence-by-sentence discussion -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
[Reference] Numbered line-by-line Benjiboi-400 rewrite
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PR77 sentence notes
|
---|
|
I don't understand why this article keeps getting re-'plated. All the material seems thoroughly ref'd up. -- 209.6.238.201 ( talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I've again taken a whack at weeding out a lot of the needless detail from the you-know-where section. I do share the concerns expressed elsewhere on the page that the NPOV tag should be addressed clearly and directly. It sounds like Polanski has statements that he felt the alleged victim wasn't so innocent - or something similar - is that correct? If so what is the proposed additional content and ref to be added to convey his POV? p.s. extra points for presenting such without any mark-up, digressions, and using less than 500 or so words. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
BIG PICTURE: The Roman Polanski case is NPOV dispute writ large—"the world" is arguing about this, and so it would be supremely odd for that to not be manifest in Wikipedia. I.E., NPOV dispute is the "natural" state of this matter at this time. No one should be surprised (or particularly concerned:) by that. The tag acknowledges the fact.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion process took much time to put in every edit that is in the current version. Its needs the same care in its removal, or additions, which Proofreader77 has started a process to address. Please address in process. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi's compression yielded a summary of ~400 words (~2500 characters). Since we do not assume that section to be wrapped in plastic, may we reach a general agreement that the summary of Roman Polanski sexual abuse case in this article should be no more than 500 words? (NOTE: At some point a structure other than straight timeline coverage might be warranted, but will leave that discussion to significantly later than today:)
If the idea of 500-words-or-less (or 400, 425, 450, 475:) is agreeable, I would like to do (numbered line) analysis of the Benjiboi version, and clarify where/why there may be NPOV issues to resolve. (Fear not, the contentious lines are few—but the contention at those few points may be significant.:) SO:
(if so, then step 2, a numbered line clarification of any NPOV issue remaining) Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The gross vandalism of this article is simply continuing. A NPOV Dispute was opened. We are still waiting on what specifics are in queston. They have not been raised. It is not proper to just edit out details that were place in via the entire concess process of discussion. There was basis by discussion of where we were. No it has come to wholesale hacking...or whacking, whichever term you want to use.
As far a a limitation on words, this is completely abatray and not called for. Its like picking something out of your backside and presenting as golden, it still stinks. Look at the section for "The Fearless Vampire Killers" its half the length of the sexual abuse section. And it has its own entire page detailing it out. You want to word cut how about there.
What is being eliminated is sourced information, for no reason. If people want to object to it for NPOV they have the opportunity. but as it stand now, these deletions are being carried out on a rush. Accuracy and approprib9itly are important, counting words is not. Either use the NPOV dispute to raise issue or not. But it will remain improper to wholes delete contributions that have been made over weeks time. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Either use the NPOV Dispute Process and discuss needs for changes adding or deleting or don't do it. The content was built upon consensus and its being removed for the reason of an arbitrary word goal of few. Raise concerns in discussion first before hacking away. We are getting near the point where the entire entry should just be handed over Dalton, Polanski's attorney. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
An experienced editor dropping in from out of the clouds and compressing (whenever they get a feeling it should be done) is a very unexpected (and upsetting) event. BUT if there was a practical rule of thumb of how large is appropriate, then there would be less a feeling of arbitrary (improper) power being inflicted on a lot of work done by editors who didn't expect it to all get undone ... apparently by whim).
NOTE: I have already written 100K words arguing with TomBaker321 ... and simply would like, in this case, to be able to say: this is the size thing consensus feels appropriate.
BOTTOM LINE: Word limits as a general rule, no. Temporary heuristic for a highly contentious section (which has its own article which is being ignored to expand the main article, yes. I.E., In 500 words or less ... summarize this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that the 500 word goal is notappropriate. Your appraisal is wrong. Please address any changes in the NPOV Dispute Working Group. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(NOTE: New subtopic of NPOV dispute ...) Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Current version updates is the version most similar to prior to NPOV Dispute. This version hammered out over weeks is near fully complete to what should be said, it is not length and sticks to the significant moments and facts.
FOR ANY CHANGES TO THE DISPUTED SECTION PLACE THEM HERE FIRST.
The original NPOV Dispute was not raised with any specifics, so this method will address concerns about improper form of the NPOV Dispute Flag. We have seen massive deletions of content that was worked very hard for inclusion with NPOV sourcing etc, only to single users "weed-whack" the entry and say "ta-da" lets remove the flag now.
Any revisions done, without going through the above process are subject to removal. Please if there is any other way of dealing with this offer it up. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A NPOV Dispute was raised without giving specific details of what was disputed, then about 6 sentences were removed for claims of length only, now that the information is gone, people think the NPOV Dispute tag should be removed. "People" referring to a close group of editors. I removed my opposition to the NPOV Dispute because I believe that advocacy editing is being done under a banner of NPOV. I thought an orderly Dispute Process is Mandated for the NPOV tag. Instead what happened is just a single editor removing information, and claiming it was done for word length. So instead of a process we got a ripping out of information. My attempt in putting in this section was simply to try to follow an orderly NPOV Dispute Process, which would address the original taggers concerns. The NPOV dispute process is not being worked with objections and responses. My attempt to go to process seems failed. I asked for alternatives to resolving the NPOV Dispute with fairness, see above, none were offered -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
(Link to subtopic in NPOV dispute) Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Tombaker321, Off2riorob, Dream Focus, and Banjeboi seem to be against the NPOV tag, while only Proofreader77 is for it. To clarify everyone's position, so we can form a consensus, how many people believe the NPOV should be there?
e.g. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
While new editors are not to be treated harshly, when they behave disruptively (which is the point we have reached now), it should be made clear that we are no longer in the realm of content dispute, but behavior. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Pardon me, if I don't think a roll call vote for sockpuppetry is warranted. | ” |
These are selected keypoints in order to remove confusion, and get the process moving again, since we have a New Dispute.
Requirements of a NPOV Dispute WP:NPOVD
There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
How to initiate an NPOV debate
If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies
Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The naturally high contention of an article like this is perhaps not the best place to get ones bearings in Wikipedia, but such is the case, so perhaps some uninvolved editors will guide the new editor to the appropriate forums to address their concerns. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's move forward -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader77 has created a new NPOV Dispute Flag for the Sexual assault case.
Procedures
(The Tagger needs to do this in this section, without circular reference to previous talk, they must be stated here, and clearly, presented for a first time reader self contained here) -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[Notice] of talk page disruption Further discussion has been temporarily delayed by continuing talk page disruption to remove the NPOV tag. See:
For specific sentences at issue
For support for the tag see:
For BLP issue of NPOV of Sexual assault case (summary) see
Bottom line for the moment: Much of my time is currently being taken up by Tombaker321's repeating his assertion that there is not sufficient talk page support for the tag. That is ridiculous on its face. When the disruption ceases, we will address the NPOV problems in sentences 2, 7, 9, 10, 12 as previously noted (amidst all the endless, and yes, disruptive, agitation to remove the tag by Tombaker321.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Old
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Wikipedia editors should survey Wikipedia policy (especially
WP:NPOVD) and prepare to make arguments based on that.
{WPP.002.13} ____ One fact that's missing we'll close this verse on:
(I.E., Dear sonnet scoffers: Apparently the sonnets contained something actionable. lol) Initial discussion/comments re NPOV dispute
So kindly do that, as direct and specific as possible. Dream Focus 09:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Response by Tombaker321 re NPOV disputeRESPONSE 1. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. 2. There are no objections to the current content on this Wikipedia entry. i.e. Nothing about what is shown and sourced is being disputed. 3. Cyptic circular commentary obfuscates the issues which, if any, need resolution. Specific requests for addition or deletion, or for whether they show bias need to be raised. They have not. 4. The editor as means to challenge NPOV wants to add that 'Ritterband was removed from the case" this entry has not been attempted to made directly of via discussion pages. I believe there would be not objection to this fact, as it is certainly a fact. Instead of disputing the entire entry, it would be far simpler to just add this specific fact and see to whether any other editor has an objection. (fwiw, I would have no objection to this in conception, and most likely in execution) 5. Whatever the editor is raising about perspective of "prosecutor Roger Gunson and Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton" is unknown to specificity. As a matter of legal fact, the 1203.03 90 day diagnostic, was available for the judge. This 1203.03 diagnostic was never a sentence, and the sentencing of Polanski never occurred. Because the prosecution does not dismiss the other charges related to the plea deal until sentencing is completed, all the charges against Polanski remain unresolved. These are legal facts. Much of which has been omitted solely for brevity. That is information. The legal system has discreetly defined movements. As to what the editor would like to have withing the Wikipedia entry as far as perspective, is completely unstated at any time within discussion. There is no reason to believe the normal discussion process would not work. 6. Rejected by the normal editorial discussion process, this editor wants to put within the Wikipedia entry that the 13 year old victim of the crime that Polanski plead guilty to, had the appears of being 16 or 18. The editor does not want to use the photographic evidence as a basis for this claim. Moreover, the editor said that the reason for the inclusion for this information was to mitigate in the readers mind, the impression of what a 44 year man did to a 13 year old girl. The editor then states that the Polanski asserted "she looked older", as means for support of adding the victims appearance in the entry. When challenged in the discussion pages his claims the editor did not produce any evidence or citations, and simply ignored the questions to the editor, and said he would handle it in "due course". More Importantly:.......regarding above item 6: Polanski responded in his pleading of guilt to the offense, that he understood here age to be 13, and that he understood her age at the time of the incident. Thus mitigation in the readers mind is hardly called for because Polanaski's admission of guilt accepted, is the record of fact, within materials already cited in this entry.
7. For any items that the editor wants included or removed the normal discussion pages have been available, and remain available. These requests can be opened as specific topics for review in the discussion pages. Overall summary of response:
Discussion
For the rest of us who have no idea what this is all about can it be stated clearly in, like, a few sentences? Thank you in advance. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We have waited for clarification of what is at dispute of NPOV is about. It has not been stated. This topic and dispute seem to have become some sort of plaything. Sonnets being written and then hidden, and being offered as substantiation for a dispute. WTF? Here is some of the commentary that is being offered as the basis of the NPOV dispute. And I quote:
Seriously WTF? All of the above quotes are being used as part of the basis for raising a NPOV dispute. But where is the substance? There are no specific issues being raised at being in dispute, they are simply absent. See:
The above is not present, no specific issues are raised, and the NPOV dispute tag is erected solely on the opinion that its not neutral, the tag was used as first resort, and as a lever. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The management of this dispute of horrible, without specifics being offered by the tagger for what is disputed. Because the problem has grown worse. I have reset the version to basically at the point of when this dispute was started. This restores Proofreader77s additon of Vanatter's appraisal of Polanski. At a minimum I would think the dispute should include discussion prior to additions and deletions. The restored current version is actually livable for me. But I now restore my objection to the last edit -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV dispute status after condensing of summary (6 Nov/Benjiboi/400w)
Prior to the NPOV dispute there was a baseline, that baseline was created with discussion in talk. Now that original has been edited, with whole sections removed, without any reasoning given. A close knit saying that the NPOV flag can not be removed. Now the originator Proofreader77 (the tagger), saying the NPOV dispute applies to the new version only. This NPOV Dispute is off the rails. My attempts to get it back on track, have failed also. No specific lines have been been called out as "not NPOV". This deleting of data without cause or justification, under guise of a NPOV Dispute, is a just train wreck. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Tag removed/reinstatedThe POV Dispute Flag is RemovedI have removed the NPOV flag for the following reasons.
If a new tag is to be put up, numbers 10 and 11 are not options, they are requirements, and need to be done clearly. To raise a dispute flag, the editor must give enough information to address and resolve, its not to be used as a blank to to satisfy an editors opinion. Point out the problem, say why, offer solution, solicit feedback -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) NPOV dispute tag reinstated
NPOV dispute tag reinstated (2/etc)
[Reference] Difs of removals
DR documentation - Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Ongoing: The NPOV dispute states nothing Specific [Response: misrepresentation]
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (no response to
(no response to uncivil demands and misrepresentations. See this diff of documentation of disruption on talk page and
Enough drama. See sentence-by-sentence discussion -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
[Reference] Numbered line-by-line Benjiboi-400 rewrite
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PR77 sentence notes
|
---|
|
I don't understand why this article keeps getting re-'plated. All the material seems thoroughly ref'd up. -- 209.6.238.201 ( talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)