Talk:Aging of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Europe Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

There shouldn't be information on Japan and the USA in this article. It's titled 'Aging of Europe'. 84.71.44.94 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Or Israel. Weird article. Nothing on the rising populations of France and Ireland? 41.241.127.138 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with any country outside Europe, and Isreal isn't an European country. Also what the pope says isn't relevant to this article, nor is the reference to "Children of Men" in the "See also" section. Stop reverting my edit and give a reason for why these things should be in this article. 84.26.72.127 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Israel is often considered part of Europe. The current Israeli government is trying to get Israel to join the European Union. The phenomenon in Europe is often tied to aging in other developed countries, specifically Japan and the United States and the Western world. The Pope's quote is not obscure. Children of Men depicts both the Aging in Europe phenomenon and the Eurabia idea which is directly connected. I've already explained this to you in the past. Please refrain from removing references and referring to edits you dont like as "vandalism". Jose João (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall anyone considering Israel part of Europe, let it be _often_. Nor have I never heard of any plans from the Israeli government to join the EU, nor would the EU even want it. The pope quote is just stupid propaganda for the mindless sheeple that still have any respect for the church, and the fact that Europe isn't christian anymore is not relevant to the aging of europe. I don't know if you have ever read "Children of Men", but it details a world where the sperm count of males plummeted to zero, not the aging of Europe. The development of other countries should not be included but they should have their own article, and their articles should be referred to in the "See also" section. I've contacted a mod on your reverting behavior.

84.26.72.127 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained revert

Hi, please don't revert large changes without explaining why. All of the changes I made adhered to policy (weasel words, NPOV, staying on topic), and I also corrected many things and added additional relevant info. So if you object to anything, please state specifically what, and why, so we can cooperate and improve the article as best we can.

And regarding the info that I removed, you might consider starting new sections in the xenophobia article and using it there. As for this article, lets try and stay on topic. Krawndawg (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits lowered the quality of the article. If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please refrain from editing the article. Jose João (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree with your opinion. Please specify the problems you have, and expand on how we should further better the article, instead of removing sourced content and NPOV corrections. Simply stating that you don't like my edits does not help anything, and that's certainly not a valid reason to revert my changes. This is a community based website, not a personal website or blog that you have authority over. Krawndawg (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Jose João that the text inserted by Krawndawg is highly POV. It includes segments like that: "A commentary published by Rodina suggested that those Russian sociologists making the gloomiest predictions were working for western organizations committed to destroying Russia." So, I suggest that we should start from the older version, and Krawndawg should make one small change at a time and get consensus.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how presenting both sides of the story is POV. POV editing would be not including their point of view. In the mean time, please refrain from following me around in different articles and reverting my changes, or I'll be forced to report you for stalking. Thanks.

Krawndawg (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this above. You deleted good and sourced content provided by others and included segments like that: "A commentary published by Rodina suggested that those Russian sociologists making the gloomiest predictions were working for western organizations committed to destroying Russia.". You are definitely in minority here. Please follow WP:Consensus and WP:Conflict resolution. There are too many things to discuss. Therefore, I suggested that you make one change at a time and wait if there are any objections from others.Biophys (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What did I delete? Specify, I do not recall deleting any sourced information at all, aside from the off topic stuff about xenophobia. Further, you did not explain how providing both points of view is POV. It's the exact opposite. One more revert and I am reporting you for harassment. Krawndawg (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What "harassment" are you talking about? You started editing in WP only several days ago and we had a disagreement over several articles that I edited long time before you (they are on my watch list). After that I got a suspicion that you are doing similar things in other WP articles, looked here, and yes, you are doing very questionable edits.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable? All of my edits perfectly adhere to their sources, and all of my edits are in compliance with NPOV policy. All of my additions to this article were constructive, sourced, and all of my corrections were either grammatical, or corrections based on the sources themselves. The content I deleted was completely off topic, and had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article. Large texts of xenophobia do not belong in an article about the "aging of Europe".

You're assuming bad faith, and I really don't appreciate that at all, because I assure you that I am absolutely not pushing my POV. I am doing the exact opposite by presenting both points of views when I find a POV statement. You have been reported. Krawndawg (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not assume bad faith. This your accusation is unfounded. I suggested that you should resolve this problem with user Perspicacite by gradually discussing and resolving one issue after another. I only provided third opinion here. In my opinion, your current edits are POV and reduce the quality of the article, exactly as Perspicacite said.Biophys (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you did assume bad faith, by saying you were "suspicious" of me. And once again, you haven't given a legit explanation as to how any of my editing is POV. How, tell me, is adding a response to a comment "POV". Again, that is the complete opposite of POV. Providing both sides of an argument is exactly what NPOV means. If someone says something, and someone responds, that response must be told in order for it to be NPOV, which is exactly what I did.

And that's not what the other user accused me of anyways. He gave no rational explanation for his revert. If he had presented and specified what he felt was wrong with my edits, I would not have reverted. It's as simple as that. I cannot take his suggestions into account, because he has made none. And you, having never even edited in this article before, obviously came here to start trouble with me, specifically, as you already said so yourself. Krawndawg (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

erm, yes... how is presenting both sides POV? Somehow I feel I have to agree with Krawndawg, at least it would be nice to get an explanation as to why this is being seen as POV. Shouldn't the information presented be unbaised, thus allowing the reader the form his opinion? 217.232.208.183 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork to Demographics of Russia

I think most disputes here are Russia-related. Could we just make a separate article about demography of Russia to resolve the issues?Biophys (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But we have already article Demographics of Russia! So, all these materials belong there. Let's not create content forks.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No disputes here are Russia related. In fact, the dispute is over nothing specific, as my changes were reverted without explanation, and my edits were not limited to the Russia section. I can only guess that the user who reverted my changes didn't like the deletion of all that off topic material (??).

This article isn't a POV fork. POV stands for point of view, and this article doesn't present a different point of view as the demographics article (since I edited it, and added the positive turn of events, anyways).Krawndawg (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User Perspicacite made a revert again. This will continue unless you find a compromise. To find a compromise, I suggest that you make one small change at a time and discuss it with Perspicacite (and I can participate in the discussion). Placement some of your material in Demographics of Russia would also resolve the problem. But no changes should be made in older version unless there is a consensus to make such changes - per WP:Consensus.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but it's quite evident that Perspicacite is unwilling to cooperate, regardless. I'm not sure how else to go about this if he's unwilling to express himself in discussion. Making one small change at a time will not solve anything, since all of my changes were already made in a series of small edits, yet he decided to revert them all. Until I'm given a legit reason for his reverts, all I can do is revert back and ask him to explain himself again. Wikipedia cannot function as a community when users are unwilling to communicate and at least make an effort cooperate. Krawndawg (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Try making productive edits. Jose João (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think you're going to convince me to let the page rot by insulting me, you're mistaken. Please remain civil, and cooperate. Krawndawg (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophobia

Explain here why you think the subject of xenophobia is directly relevant to the "aging of Europe" and deserves to take up a half of two sections. Personally, when I click on a link going to something called "aging of Europe" I don't generally expect to find huge paragraphs dedicated to how some terrible Italian mayor brought a pig to a mosque to scare off Muslims. Completely irrelevant to the subject. Unless of course you can prove that this has such a negative effect on immigration that it's a cause of diminishing populations - keeping in mind that countries like Italy and Russia already have restraints and limits on how many immigrants they let into the country. Krawndawg (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, please explain why you removed a sourced paragraph about what the Russian ministry of health projected regarding their future population. That's exactly what this article is about, and this article is littered with projections and future estimates. Krawndawg (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I included the sourced paragraph. Yes, I think we can exclude the story about pig, but not anything else. Do not see any other xenophobia.Biophys (talk)

You completely avoided what I was talking about. None of that information about immigrant oppression/xenophobia is relevant to the article. Explain how it is or I will continue removing it until you do. That reinserted text has nothing to do with the topic of aging Europe. And you still haven't explained your removal of said paragraph above. I can only view your edits as an attempt to compromise the quality of this article and push an agenda ie. vandalism. Krawndawg (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)