A fact from ZunZuneo appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we have any pictures of what the site actually looked like? edit:current link to zunzeneo directs you to a scary looking warning page.
-G
[1] include? EllenCT ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A first time editor of this article has introduced two "undue weight" tags without explanation. Burrobert ( talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I had no way of knowing about this message because you never notified me (or even mentioned, for that matter). The tags should be self-explanatory: compared to a government official or an investigative journalists, the additions don't carry the same weight as the existing statements.
Since you have objected to "drive by tagging", I have gone ahead and solved the tags. Regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Burrobert and NoonIcarus: NoonIcarus, I see that you tagged without an explanation and then removed the said information. This is similar to your behavior of removing a disputed source, tagging it as "citation needed" and then deleting the material ( as previously discussed). Burrobert and I have raised this concern multiple times. In your edit summary, you vaguely state "Solving inline tags", again not providing an explanation. Finally, after Burrobert has asked you for an explanation for over a month, you provide an answer that could have been included in an initial edit summary. This is disruptive.
Now, my intention was to include the information you removed in an appropriate area near comparative sources. As I do not want to edit war (since you removed what I placed), I'd like to ask Burrobert what their opinion is on the information that I included. Is it undue or placed inappropriately?-- WMrapids ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes @ WMrapids:, your material fits quite well with a lot of other content that is already in the article. Its placement in the Reactions sections is also fine. The opinions have due weight because there are multiple sources saying the same thing about the ZunZuneo programme. The opinions may have lacked due weight if they had differed from most or all other opinions about the ZunZuneo programme, but that is not the case. ("Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views".) For example:
I would suggest a minor rewrite of Mark Hanson’s opinion. Hanson says that those who support the US embargo also support the ZunZuneo programme because both are “initiatives to destabilize the [Cuban] government”. Perhaps say something like that.
Regarding The Nation as a source, our guide says “There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. … Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed”. Since you have attributed the criticism, there is no problem with your edit. Burrobert ( talk) 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A fact from ZunZuneo appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we have any pictures of what the site actually looked like? edit:current link to zunzeneo directs you to a scary looking warning page.
-G
[1] include? EllenCT ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A first time editor of this article has introduced two "undue weight" tags without explanation. Burrobert ( talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I had no way of knowing about this message because you never notified me (or even mentioned, for that matter). The tags should be self-explanatory: compared to a government official or an investigative journalists, the additions don't carry the same weight as the existing statements.
Since you have objected to "drive by tagging", I have gone ahead and solved the tags. Regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Burrobert and NoonIcarus: NoonIcarus, I see that you tagged without an explanation and then removed the said information. This is similar to your behavior of removing a disputed source, tagging it as "citation needed" and then deleting the material ( as previously discussed). Burrobert and I have raised this concern multiple times. In your edit summary, you vaguely state "Solving inline tags", again not providing an explanation. Finally, after Burrobert has asked you for an explanation for over a month, you provide an answer that could have been included in an initial edit summary. This is disruptive.
Now, my intention was to include the information you removed in an appropriate area near comparative sources. As I do not want to edit war (since you removed what I placed), I'd like to ask Burrobert what their opinion is on the information that I included. Is it undue or placed inappropriately?-- WMrapids ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes @ WMrapids:, your material fits quite well with a lot of other content that is already in the article. Its placement in the Reactions sections is also fine. The opinions have due weight because there are multiple sources saying the same thing about the ZunZuneo programme. The opinions may have lacked due weight if they had differed from most or all other opinions about the ZunZuneo programme, but that is not the case. ("Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views".) For example:
I would suggest a minor rewrite of Mark Hanson’s opinion. Hanson says that those who support the US embargo also support the ZunZuneo programme because both are “initiatives to destabilize the [Cuban] government”. Perhaps say something like that.
Regarding The Nation as a source, our guide says “There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. … Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed”. Since you have attributed the criticism, there is no problem with your edit. Burrobert ( talk) 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)