Talk:Washington Summit Publishers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ultramarine will place an arguement for why this is not an attack page shortly. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am not the page creator. If you want to delete the page, do an ordinary deletion request.Ultramarine (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism or ...
I reverted back to criticism due to the following:
- "which reprints a range of classical and modern racist tracts"
- "discredited 'science' of breeding better humans"
- "WSP also reprints 'classic' Aryan and eugenic tracts"
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center lists Washington Summit Publishers as a White Nationalist Hate Group"
This does not seem like replaying the facts, and is all opinion on content, therefore criticism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cited material. Read WP:NPOV. Claimed POV is not a justification for deletions.Ultramarine (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those come from the second quote which does appear to be criticism. The first quote appears to me to be more of a statement of facts so I pulled it out of the criticism section. Does that work for people? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why should we remove criticisms? Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are so quick to argue, you do not see they were never removed. We are discussing the title of the section. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Why was material removed. If no objections, I will restore it.Ultramarine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing was removed ... --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Confused by new sections. My mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Accusations" is now an incorrect title for the section. If you look at the titles of the books published: "Ancient Eugenics", "Aryan Household-I" "Aryan Household-II", "Essays in Eugenics" "Aryan Race" it is not an 'accusation' to say that they print Aryan and Eugenic materials, that is a statement of fact and calling it an 'accusation' is POV.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Confused by new sections. My mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing was removed ... --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Why was material removed. If no objections, I will restore it.Ultramarine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are so quick to argue, you do not see they were never removed. We are discussing the title of the section. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why should we remove criticisms? Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those come from the second quote which does appear to be criticism. The first quote appears to me to be more of a statement of facts so I pulled it out of the criticism section. Does that work for people? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)