Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Also, please see
WP:RS for some guidelines about what is an appropriate source to cite in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! --
Rbellin|
Talk
03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, JrFace. What is your response to my suggestion here? Nick Graves 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that describing Alexander and those who agree with him (whether they constitute an "echo chamber" or not) as "[o]ne critic" is certainly less than ideal. It's arguably a use of weasel words, it reads like an intentional attempt to diminish criticism (casting Alexander as so unimportant that he doesn't even deserve a name), and it gives the mistaken impression that Alexander is entirely alone in his criticism. Personally, I'd just say that Edward Alexander made the criticism, and perhaps note that the criticism has been echoed on various blogs. I also notice that the article has an extremely uneven method of making citations, mixing references with external links. That needs to be fixed. My two cents. Cheers! -- Hyperbole 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly object to csloat's wording: like I said, it's not perfect (I think it's slightly POV in favor of Spivak), but it's not a blatant policy violation or anything. I don't really have any emotional connection to the article at all, having never edited it or read Spivak's work - I just showed up because there was a RfC put out. Cheers! -- Hyperbole 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello JrFace. I'm glad you found peace with the situation. The current text is not perfect, but it is at least somewhat more complete, and it does mention Alexander's criticism. I think you did well. While this may be water under the bridge at this point, I must say that I found the tone of your latter comments on the talk page confusing: The comments were quite formal, and referred to other editors as "friends" etc. Insofar as this was a good faith effort to remain civil, I commend you, but it did seem a bit "over the top," and could have been perceived as sarcastic by some readers for this reason. I am not suggesting that any sort of retraction or clarification on the Spivak talk page is in order, since no one took issue, and you have made your peace. But I am mentioning this in case you find yourself in a content dispute in the future. You do not have to make friends or write with impeccably prim and cordial prose to be civil. Again, I am glad you were able to achieve a compromise and some satisfaction on the issue. The article has been improved as a result of your efforts. Nick Graves 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This arguing about standards of libel got me thinking, it would be helpful to have a page that outlines specifically what may qualify as libel on Wikipedia. I found some helpful case law that I linked to on the other page, including what is probably the most important: precedent that shows that immediate retraction will negate any lawsuit, especially on Wikipedia where a retraction removes it from the entire website. The kind of paranoia by certain people just gets things out of hand. It baffles me why he so insists on ignoring expert testimony (not myself, but others); he literally was offended with me suggesting he listen to lawyers who understand the case law much better than him. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it seems there is a page, but it just links to webpages, without creating a summary itself. It probably should be expanded or link to another Wikipedia page that summarizes all Wikipedia relevant issues. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Also, please see
WP:RS for some guidelines about what is an appropriate source to cite in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! --
Rbellin|
Talk
03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, JrFace. What is your response to my suggestion here? Nick Graves 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that describing Alexander and those who agree with him (whether they constitute an "echo chamber" or not) as "[o]ne critic" is certainly less than ideal. It's arguably a use of weasel words, it reads like an intentional attempt to diminish criticism (casting Alexander as so unimportant that he doesn't even deserve a name), and it gives the mistaken impression that Alexander is entirely alone in his criticism. Personally, I'd just say that Edward Alexander made the criticism, and perhaps note that the criticism has been echoed on various blogs. I also notice that the article has an extremely uneven method of making citations, mixing references with external links. That needs to be fixed. My two cents. Cheers! -- Hyperbole 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly object to csloat's wording: like I said, it's not perfect (I think it's slightly POV in favor of Spivak), but it's not a blatant policy violation or anything. I don't really have any emotional connection to the article at all, having never edited it or read Spivak's work - I just showed up because there was a RfC put out. Cheers! -- Hyperbole 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello JrFace. I'm glad you found peace with the situation. The current text is not perfect, but it is at least somewhat more complete, and it does mention Alexander's criticism. I think you did well. While this may be water under the bridge at this point, I must say that I found the tone of your latter comments on the talk page confusing: The comments were quite formal, and referred to other editors as "friends" etc. Insofar as this was a good faith effort to remain civil, I commend you, but it did seem a bit "over the top," and could have been perceived as sarcastic by some readers for this reason. I am not suggesting that any sort of retraction or clarification on the Spivak talk page is in order, since no one took issue, and you have made your peace. But I am mentioning this in case you find yourself in a content dispute in the future. You do not have to make friends or write with impeccably prim and cordial prose to be civil. Again, I am glad you were able to achieve a compromise and some satisfaction on the issue. The article has been improved as a result of your efforts. Nick Graves 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This arguing about standards of libel got me thinking, it would be helpful to have a page that outlines specifically what may qualify as libel on Wikipedia. I found some helpful case law that I linked to on the other page, including what is probably the most important: precedent that shows that immediate retraction will negate any lawsuit, especially on Wikipedia where a retraction removes it from the entire website. The kind of paranoia by certain people just gets things out of hand. It baffles me why he so insists on ignoring expert testimony (not myself, but others); he literally was offended with me suggesting he listen to lawyers who understand the case law much better than him. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it seems there is a page, but it just links to webpages, without creating a summary itself. It probably should be expanded or link to another Wikipedia page that summarizes all Wikipedia relevant issues. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)