User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Giofoof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Displays exactly the same perspective. On Talk:Zionism, they use the same arguments...

Moopiefoof:

• "Firstly, all the citations are partisan opinions rather than factual sources. Secondly, it is fundamentally a matter of opinion and not of fact."
• ""national liberation movement", on the other hand, is a politically-loaded term."

Giovanni33:

• "Specifically the references that it uses to state as a fact particularly contentious POV's. Not suprisingly, these references are from blatently partisan and non-scholarly sources:"
• "The intro which stands out as more political statement than a nuetral encylopedia article entry:"
• "The fact is that this POV is disputed by other POV's, and therefore must be stated as a point of view attributed to such sources--not stated as an undisputed fact."

...and propose the same solution.

Moopiefoof:

• "I've changed the description of Zionism as a "national liberation movement" from being stated as a fact to being attributed to Zionists"

Giovanni33:

• "In the very least these should be worded as "according to...""

Orders other users to post on Talk.

Moopiefoof:

• Fourth ever edit summary: "Where does it say the NPOV policy doesn't apply to the article on Wikipedia? My edit clearly makes the article less biased. If you revert again, please explain." [1]

• "Like in the article on, say, evolution, the main body of the page should go along with the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. Please do not revert again without explanation." [2]

Giovanni33:

• "Make your case on talk and get consensus." [3]
• "rv. You didnt make your case on talk to suppression of these links here." [4]
• "make your case on the talk page. This is the product of consensus." [5]

Kecik (known sock):

• Make case on talk for removal of this material. [6]

Displays attitude that merely having (re)posted his arguments on Talk more recently legitimizes his edits and delegitimizes others.

Moopiefoof:

• "I note that it has been 64 hours since anybody has made any serious attempt to defend the current version of the article, and that several cogent arguments have been put forward as to why the current version is unacceptable, that nobody has even attempted to refute. Can we take this as a de-facto consensus?" [7]

64.121.40.153 (which is Gio [8]):

• "The case against your changes was refuted, and left unanswered, thus unsustained." [9]