User talk:Preform

Recent edits

Preform, thank you for your recent edits. Unfortunately they have all involved introducing words that hinder an article's ability to maintain a neutral point of view and have been reverted. Please read our guidelines on weasel words and our manual of style for more on how to write appropriately for Wikipedia. You can also check out the welcome page for more on contributing. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 23:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is NPOV

There seems to be a problem with stating facts that seem to some to be biased. It is not biased to call terrroist groups terrorist groups. Or identifying a person by what she or he is if it is germane to the description.Preform 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on this is outlined in the neutral point of view policy. This policy is one of the five pillars and a corner stone of Wikipedia's values. It isn't that points of view can not be expressed, providing they represent significant points of view of experts in the subject, it's that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with clear and explicit mention of a particular point of view preferably noting who holds that view. Most of the edits you have made today are inherently value laden in a way that does not maintain a neutral point of view. I suggest you check out the words to avoid section of our manual of style in order to better understand how to use language in a Wikipedia article. --Siobhan Hansa 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty edit

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. The idea that Amnesty is criticized more often than not is a very contentious point of view. Using a phrase that is intended to indicate that, does not reflect a neutral point of view. The use of a word that does not indicate such a balance allows the reader to assess the different points of view presented in a less directed fashion. If you disagree with this reasoning we should transfer this conversation to the article talk page, as it isn't a matter for just the two of us. --Siobhan Hansa 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of neutrality. The way the Amnesty article is written gives the impression that more people favor amnesty than criticize how is that a NPOV? Preform 11:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you disagree with me, you'll need to take this to the Amnesty talk page. --Siobhan Hansa 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hamas edit

You already have some NPOV warnings (with four you can be banned), and editing articles for the sole purpose of relabeling a side 'terrorists' wont win you any favors. The differance between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is entirely down to personal opinion, and in Wikipedia we need to give the facts without taking sides or bias. ShakingSpirit ^talk 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what you are saying is that a terrorist can't be called a terrorist? I can reference many major news sources that claim Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists.Preform 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked your page you blocked someone from calling Bin Laden a terrorist? If so this is P.C lunacy.Preform 11:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hamas edit

You already have some NPOV warnings (with four you can be banned), and editing articles for the sole purpose of relabeling a side 'terrorists' wont win you any favors. The differance between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is entirely down to personal opinion, and in Wikipedia we need to give the facts without taking sides or bias. ShakingSpirit ^talk 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what you are saying is that a terrorist can't be called a terrorist? I can reference many major news sources that claim Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists.Preform 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked your page you blocked someone from calling Bin Laden a terrorist? If so this is P.C lunacy.Preform 11:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as simple as you think it is. Let me explain. Let's assume (for argument's sake, but I do agree with it) that Hamas members have been committing terror attacks. Can we then label the entire Hamas organization as a terrorist organization? On wikipedia we must stick to the facts and not make judgements ourselves. So, what we can say is e.e. that Hamas has attacked civilian targets, that Hamas is considered to be a terrorists organization by some countries and we can give a list of all these countries. These are all verifiable facts.

What would happen if wiki-policy were to change and we could write that Hamas is a terrorist organization, instead of, say, is considered to be a terrorist organization by the US, Israel the Eu etc.? You would then see more "edit wars", because editors can then insert opinions and don't have to base that on facts. Even if we stick to facts you can have controversial edits, because the facts are not always clear, but in principle something is either true or false so if you stick to the facts then one could, in principle, resolve conflicts.

And more specifically, about the terrorism issue, you would see people who would the page on Israel calling that country a terrorist country, they could back that up by opinions found in Iranian newspapers. To prevent that you would have to make a rule that would only allow one to write opinions found in Western newspapers and wikipedia would cease to be neutral.

Going back to the case of Hamas. You could think that given that Hamas is a terrorist organization and wikipedia does not allow one to say that in the Hamas article, wikipedia is worthless. However, you should then examine why you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization, because wikipedia allows you write everything that is verifiable. If you think about this carefully, you'll find that, in general, the labeling of groups as terror organizations by countries is a political decision and not always based on hard facts.

Do we automatically consider attacks against civilians to be terror attacks? Well, the French destroyed a Green Peace ship in New Zealand killing one person. That attack is not considered to be a terror attack, and France is certainly not considered to be a terrorist country. And if Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko (I'm not saying he did), he still won't be considered to be a terrorist and Russia won't be considered to be a terrorist country.

So, clearly there are other reasons besides a group attacking civilians that make countries put organizations on lists of terror organizations. Those other reasons may be legitimate, e.g. the US supports Israel and one can argue that Israel deserves support. But it does make the labeling of a group as a terror organization, just because the US says it is, to be more dependent on US foreign policy (the rights and wrongs of that foreign policy don't matter) than on objective facts. Count Iblis 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up Wikipedia's own definition of a terrorist which seems to back up my desciption of Hams and Hezbollah, I suggest you examine as well.Preform 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that Hamas members have been involved in terror attacks. You can then argue that the military wing of Hamas who plan these attacks is a terrorist organization. But it then becomes a matter of opinion whether the entire Hamas organization is a terrorist organization. Count Iblis 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iblis even saying that these group conduct terrorism seems to be removed from the decription. If a majority of the news stories regarding these groups are about the terrrorist attacks (Wikipedia's definition not mine) then why should it not be in the intro. Frankly the European Union is such anti-Israeli group it can't be taken seriously nor can the bias of the Arab states who don't have who don't recognize Isreal. If it were any other nation but Isreal or the U.S there would be no dispute. In this case the U.S Great Britian and Australia should be the definitive sources.Preform 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between nations and terrorists

I keep hearing the arguments about you could call this nation (usually Israel terrorists) but the difference is what these groups are.

Those I have labeled: Hamas, Hezbollah Bin Laden are not nations they are outside groups who do not follow international law, therefore they are not acting as legtimate combantants. Iran and Syria sponser terrorists but are not themselves terrorists. When or if they attack Israel that would be an act of war not terrorism.

It seems that some do not even want to say these orginizations conduct terrorism even though that is there main focus.

I certanatly believe that countries with a free press are better sources than state sponser media like Al Jazerra or a failed debating society like the U.N should be given more weight

User:Preform

I hadn't dealt with Tannim before his repeated spamming of the unblock-en mailing list, so I'm not informed enough to tell if Preform is him or not. I have indicated on the list your suspicions, so that others who are more familiar with him might be able to tell. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Julia Jatar

Her publisher is Sumate[1] therefore WP:V

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

It also violates WP:BLP Flanker 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says she is a dubious source, I really question your neutrality on the subject of Hugo Chavez, from reading your discussion page it seems others have questioned it as well.

O.K I went on the Sumate web sight and then switched to the English portion ( my Spanish is not that good)I am basing my facts on what Jatar wrote which seems credible from U.S news reports, give me a good reason other than the information shows Chavez as an autocrat why it should not be posted.Preform 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Carr

What is ridiculous? I haven't edited any pages that you've edited (except your talk page) since all your edits were reverted yesterday afternoon. So assuming you're talking about those, the edit to the Howie Carr article in particular looked like an unfinished sentence (as I stated in my edit summary)- it was formatted as the start of a paragraph, not a member of the list; there was no context; and there was no citation. I thought you'd made a mistake. If you need help with formatting and citations you can check out some of the links I pointed you to above, or let me know what you're trying to do and I'll try and help. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use his radio broadcast as a source? He has been calling her that. his deogratory nicknames start on his radio show not in print.Preform 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. A source needs to be available to be checked - i.e. the general public should be able to get their hands on the broadcast from a reliable source so they can verify that Carr is actually calling Pelosi Nancy Shrew. If recordings or transcripts are available from, say, the radio station (for free or purchase) then that would work, but a pirate recording on some fan's website is not a reliable source - it almost always needs to be an official release to be considered reliable. It would be important to specify the dates and times of the broadcast and whereabouts in the broadcast the phrase is used (i.e. number of minutes in, or page number for a transcript). This would still be primary source however. Primary sources are not ideal, but in this case, providing no one disagrees with your interpretation of the source (i.e. by thinking he's actually talking about a different Nancy, or that he's saying something slightly different) it should suffice.

What would be better (and probably easier to cite than an audio recording), would be a reliable secondary source. So if some other well known and widely respected commentator has written about Carr's use of this nickname, that would probably be a better citation to provide.

If you're interested in more on this you can read all the detail around verifiability and reliable sources at: verifiability and reliable sources. And more than you ever wanted to know about how to cite a source at citing sources.--Siobhan Hansa 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NPOV?

Please be aware using honorifics unnecessarily and using a phrase like which conducts frequent terrorist attacks against Israel, as in this edit may violate Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point-of-view. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what your objection is? Terrorist attacks is one of the main things Hezbollah does, so I don't think it is uncessary it honestly identifys this group for what is. It is a compromise to just saying terrorist group. Facts are stubborn things.Preform 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

In the interest of goodwill, WP:AGF, and your willingness to be productive, I will unblock. However, pleaes do edit constructively, lest the block be reinstated. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Preform 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Abuse

Just to let people know there is an administrator Zoe who has abused his or her position. Blocking without discussion is against the rules. Zoe does not have the courage to discuss issues and should be removed as an administrator. I urge any administator or arbitration commitee memberwho happens to see this page to removed this censor.Preform 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]