This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CounterPunch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There is a very remarkable list of contributors in the current revision of the page, reproduced below. It's remarkable for its seeming irrelevancy, for its formatting (as you will see if you edit this page to reply), and for the fact that many of these names are not notable enough to be the subject of Wikipedia articles. My gut is to be BOLD and delete these two "paragraphs," but I want to check first.
ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
In the section of content, there are repeat allegations about two particular articles, one by journalist Allison Weir and another an interview with Roger Waters. These issues should be put in "reception" section. Additionally, it is repetitive to include the same allegation more than one time.
After moving said content to new section, bad sources remain. Neither source, nor any I could find, accused CounterPunch of publishing Holocaust denial. Additionally, DailyKos article that was referenced was not written by, nor quoting their management's position on CounterPunch, therefore it shouldn't be included. It's also redundant, and preceding content indicates CounterPunch has been accused by certain groups.
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Two points,
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The New Yorker article merely mentions them in passing. There's an entry for them in The Nation Guide to the Nation, p. 137. [1] They don't seem to have a problem with it, although they mention it has some unusual views for the Left, such as global warming denial. TFD ( talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we move forward with editing this? Seems we all agree on the main points. Scottyhines ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed more than 12,000 (!) bytes of atrociously sourced text from this Wikipedia article [2]:
If text does not have secondary RS coverage, it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. Note that I kept 8-10 CP sources for text that can reasonably be sourced to the organization itself (e.g. the group's descriptions of itself and its history) [3].
There is one piece of text that was erroneously removed by me and that’s Shamir’s slander in CP against a plaintiff in the Assange rape case. This text should only source ABC and the Guardian, and only be one sentence. It shouldn’t be a whole paragraph of primary sources, with two RS tucked in at the end noting only that the "allegations in CounterPunch were the topic of controversy in the mainstream media”.
My removal was reverted by another editor who insisted that the 12,000 (!) bytes of text sourced largely to primary sources was "not poorly sourced" [4]. Can we please move towards the inevitable outcome here and scrub this article of completely ludicrous content? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans has removed a big bunch of text from the article -
this edit - with the explanation it's been more than a week since the discussion stopped. no plausible arguments for keeping this extremely poorly sourced text.
I missed the discussion (it was Boxing Day) which mostly focused on the AK Press issue and did not explain the specific edits. Although it looks like a lot of the deleted material is poor quality, lots of footnotes have been deleted in this big edit, and at least one inaccuracy introduced, so I'd urge editors to look very carefully at the deleted text and see if any of it should be discussed or put back in.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 12:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have corrected the inaccuracy and restored one paragraph, which seemed to me a well-sourced paragraph on a clearly notable topic, but I think I support the other deletions.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There was no reason to delete this whole section.
Snooganssnoogans has an agenda, clearly, and must be stopped. You have to have input before deleting entire sections. A week is not enough time. I hope someone will also chime in so we can reevaluate.
Scottyhines (
talk) 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The two sentence on a Roger Waters in the Reception section had serious NPOV issues. First, it did not state who was making the criticism but implied it was CAMERA when in fact it was Shmuley Boteach, writing in an opinion piece for The Observer, something you had to follow the citation to learn. When quoting controversial opinions or opinions in general, Wikipedia author's should always state who is saying it, rather then weasel words like "...has been criticized for saying...". State who said and where (what publications, outlet, or venue the statement(s) was/were made. Also, never use phrases like "extreme comments" as if the are facts. Words like extreme are subjective so someone actually used that word (or a similar word) then you should be able to state exactly who made the accusation and make it clear it's their opinion not incontestable fact. It was Shmuley Boteach who made the accusation that Water's comments where extreme and that referring to "Jewish Lobby" was wrong in and of itself and so I clarified that. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires us to specifically attribute criticisms to specific notable individuals and make it clear it's those people opinions not simply statement of fact. -- 2600:1700:56A0:4680:5AB:840E:BDDB:ECFA ( talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. I was struck by the same issue while reading this article, and it seems not to have been resolved. I have attempted to improve the NPOV of this passage in the simplest way possible by changing the editorial characterization of Waters' remarks from "extreme" to "controversial". It is apparently a matter of fact that they generated controversy, while "extreme" is indeed an expression of opinion and actually mentioned in the WP Manual of Style as an example of a "value-laden label" that is generally "best avoided". I think this is fair and hope that it will be generally acceptable. Cbhack ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CounterPunch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There is a very remarkable list of contributors in the current revision of the page, reproduced below. It's remarkable for its seeming irrelevancy, for its formatting (as you will see if you edit this page to reply), and for the fact that many of these names are not notable enough to be the subject of Wikipedia articles. My gut is to be BOLD and delete these two "paragraphs," but I want to check first.
ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
In the section of content, there are repeat allegations about two particular articles, one by journalist Allison Weir and another an interview with Roger Waters. These issues should be put in "reception" section. Additionally, it is repetitive to include the same allegation more than one time.
After moving said content to new section, bad sources remain. Neither source, nor any I could find, accused CounterPunch of publishing Holocaust denial. Additionally, DailyKos article that was referenced was not written by, nor quoting their management's position on CounterPunch, therefore it shouldn't be included. It's also redundant, and preceding content indicates CounterPunch has been accused by certain groups.
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Two points,
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottyhines ( talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The New Yorker article merely mentions them in passing. There's an entry for them in The Nation Guide to the Nation, p. 137. [1] They don't seem to have a problem with it, although they mention it has some unusual views for the Left, such as global warming denial. TFD ( talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we move forward with editing this? Seems we all agree on the main points. Scottyhines ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed more than 12,000 (!) bytes of atrociously sourced text from this Wikipedia article [2]:
If text does not have secondary RS coverage, it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. Note that I kept 8-10 CP sources for text that can reasonably be sourced to the organization itself (e.g. the group's descriptions of itself and its history) [3].
There is one piece of text that was erroneously removed by me and that’s Shamir’s slander in CP against a plaintiff in the Assange rape case. This text should only source ABC and the Guardian, and only be one sentence. It shouldn’t be a whole paragraph of primary sources, with two RS tucked in at the end noting only that the "allegations in CounterPunch were the topic of controversy in the mainstream media”.
My removal was reverted by another editor who insisted that the 12,000 (!) bytes of text sourced largely to primary sources was "not poorly sourced" [4]. Can we please move towards the inevitable outcome here and scrub this article of completely ludicrous content? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans has removed a big bunch of text from the article -
this edit - with the explanation it's been more than a week since the discussion stopped. no plausible arguments for keeping this extremely poorly sourced text.
I missed the discussion (it was Boxing Day) which mostly focused on the AK Press issue and did not explain the specific edits. Although it looks like a lot of the deleted material is poor quality, lots of footnotes have been deleted in this big edit, and at least one inaccuracy introduced, so I'd urge editors to look very carefully at the deleted text and see if any of it should be discussed or put back in.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 12:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have corrected the inaccuracy and restored one paragraph, which seemed to me a well-sourced paragraph on a clearly notable topic, but I think I support the other deletions.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There was no reason to delete this whole section.
Snooganssnoogans has an agenda, clearly, and must be stopped. You have to have input before deleting entire sections. A week is not enough time. I hope someone will also chime in so we can reevaluate.
Scottyhines (
talk) 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The two sentence on a Roger Waters in the Reception section had serious NPOV issues. First, it did not state who was making the criticism but implied it was CAMERA when in fact it was Shmuley Boteach, writing in an opinion piece for The Observer, something you had to follow the citation to learn. When quoting controversial opinions or opinions in general, Wikipedia author's should always state who is saying it, rather then weasel words like "...has been criticized for saying...". State who said and where (what publications, outlet, or venue the statement(s) was/were made. Also, never use phrases like "extreme comments" as if the are facts. Words like extreme are subjective so someone actually used that word (or a similar word) then you should be able to state exactly who made the accusation and make it clear it's their opinion not incontestable fact. It was Shmuley Boteach who made the accusation that Water's comments where extreme and that referring to "Jewish Lobby" was wrong in and of itself and so I clarified that. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires us to specifically attribute criticisms to specific notable individuals and make it clear it's those people opinions not simply statement of fact. -- 2600:1700:56A0:4680:5AB:840E:BDDB:ECFA ( talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. I was struck by the same issue while reading this article, and it seems not to have been resolved. I have attempted to improve the NPOV of this passage in the simplest way possible by changing the editorial characterization of Waters' remarks from "extreme" to "controversial". It is apparently a matter of fact that they generated controversy, while "extreme" is indeed an expression of opinion and actually mentioned in the WP Manual of Style as an example of a "value-laden label" that is generally "best avoided". I think this is fair and hope that it will be generally acceptable. Cbhack ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)