Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Non NPOV Tag
Some anonymous user came in and put a Non NPOV tag on the whole page. Of course, someone can edit without giving their name. That is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia policy, but putting on the Non NPOV Tag requires that the User attempt to reach a consensus with the other users. The anonymous user did not do this. There is no comments on this Talk page and there is no attempts to communicate with the other users. So in light of the lack of information the non NPOV tag is going to be taken down. I cannot, and other users cannot, work out what problems the anonymous user perceived with the Ward Churchill article. The decision to put the Non NPOV tag on the page without even attempting to work out the issues and at least explaining what the anonymous user believed the issues to be is a violation of Wikipedia policy. In light of all of this lack of attempt to reach a consensus the Non NPOV tag will be removed.-----Keetoowah 04:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For reference, Wikipedia policy states:
- As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles. Compare and contrast this with another guideline—to be bold in updating pages.-----Keetoowah 04:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.----Keetoowah 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Adding a 4-character tag is not a drastic change. It simply labels the the blatantly polemical article for what it was. It's been cleaned up considerably since then, though it's still a long way from neutral.
- Whoever you are, you are NOT following policy. You are refusing to state who you are and you not stating what the problems are other than making a grand statement of non NPOV. You only wrote something on the Talk page when I wrote something on the Talk page.-----Keetoowah 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is a polemical article. Practically everything in it is an attack on Churchill. It doesn't say anything substantive about him that isn't written to put him in a negative light. That is not neutrality.
- Once again, you are commenting on a Talk page anonymously, which is against policy. Why don't you step and state who you are. And once again, you a making generalized statements. That won't do the trick.-----Keetoowah 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard of any policy against posting on talk pages anonymously. If such a policy existed, it could easily be enforced by the software. So I believe there's no such policy.
- That is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. You are obviously not commenting and working in good faith. Once again, you aren't giving specifics you are arguing about policy. I will simply repeat the direct quotes from the policies involved: "As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles." AND "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question." Obviously, I'm not making any changes based upon comments since you can't follow basic policies and, of course, you haven't made any concrete suggestions or comments.-----Keetoowah 20:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now I'm sure you have taken leave of your senses, if you had any. You said "you are commenting on a Talk page anonymously, which is against policy". I expressed skepticism of such a policy and you backed off to "many Wikipedians prefer", which is not a policy, it's simply a "preference" of "many wikipedians". Also, I'm no more anonymous posting without logging in than I'd be if I made up a wiki nickname and logged in under it. So your notion that I'm trying to dodge lawsuits by not logging in is completely insane. Finally, you are the one acting in poor faith. Everything in the wiki article is aimed at smearing Churchill and a lot of it is (or was) sourced from right wing political propagandists who have their own agendas against Churchill's politics. You are clearly trying to promote an external agenda with your edits. That is the very essence of non-NPOV posting.
- That is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. You are obviously not commenting and working in good faith. Once again, you aren't giving specifics you are arguing about policy. I will simply repeat the direct quotes from the policies involved: "As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles." AND "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question." Obviously, I'm not making any changes based upon comments since you can't follow basic policies and, of course, you haven't made any concrete suggestions or comments.-----Keetoowah 20:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard of any policy against posting on talk pages anonymously. If such a policy existed, it could easily be enforced by the software. So I believe there's no such policy.
- Once again, you are commenting on a Talk page anonymously, which is against policy. Why don't you step and state who you are. And once again, you a making generalized statements. That won't do the trick.-----Keetoowah 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is a polemical article. Practically everything in it is an attack on Churchill. It doesn't say anything substantive about him that isn't written to put him in a negative light. That is not neutrality.
- Whoever you are, you are NOT following policy. You are refusing to state who you are and you not stating what the problems are other than making a grand statement of non NPOV. You only wrote something on the Talk page when I wrote something on the Talk page.-----Keetoowah 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I had it with your personal attacks. This is why you are posting anonymously so you can engage in personal attacks. You are a damn liar. I have not posted 90% of what is on Churchill's page, so your BS is just that. Also, calling Dennis Banks a right-winger, the man that started the American Indian Movement indicates that you do not know a damn thing about which you blowing off moronic comments. Get over yourself.--Keetoowah 14:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Adding a 4-character tag is not a drastic change. It simply labels the the blatantly polemical article for what it was. It's been cleaned up considerably since then, though it's still a long way from neutral.
