Talk:Kevyn Orr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

World Socialist Web Site quotation

Terence7, please refrain from biased editing of this page. I am merely quoting a well respected and published website. Please refer to their wiki for more information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Socialist_Web_Site. I will make a request for moderation if you continue to remove this quote. Whatever issue you may have with the quote does not change the fact that it is from a reliable source. Truman Starr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance7 has been removing a sourced quote from The World Socialist Web Site concerning the subject of the biography. My entry was: The World Socialist Web Site called Orr a "ruthless defender of corporate interests and a bitter enemy of working people."[1] Truman Starr (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea to get some other editors to weigh in. In the meantime, you should check out the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed checked it and maintain that it is a reliable source. Truman Starr (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing is biased. You have quoted the opinions of others while removing quoted opinions you find unappealing. This content is not libelous to Wikipedia or the quoted party. This article should be balanced, not an advertisement for Mr. Orr. To quote Wikipedia's article on neutrality "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.
Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group."[2]
Also: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems."
Also: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.
The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."[3] Truman Starr (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Terrance7, you are vandalizing this entry. Consider yourself warned. Truman Starr (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The consensus (i.e. majority view) elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past has been that the World Socialist Web Site is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. See, e.g., here and here. Terence7 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a consensus as you say. There are only two mentions on the first page you link and I'll quote from that same page: "Look elsewhere on the web for opinions on WSWS, or try Google Books and see how often WSWS is cited. Pretty often, and not only by the left wing. Political publications can be RS just like other news outlets. If you're looking for a socialist perspective on that movie, be bold and go for it. If you want to use their review to make a connection from that movie to a historical event, you can use it to make the connection, but consider backing up the historical facts with another source. PS. The more recent debate where WSWS was criticised was a tangent responded to by only two people; WSWS was not the subject of the RS debate. And the debate in archive 15 was over the use of WSWS for a biographical article, where additional rules apply. There is nothing wrong with using politicized sources for most other kinds of articles, especially a movie review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"
Are you even reading the things you are linking me to? You have now challenged my edit based on several different points of view. This only further proves that you are censoring. You have not successfully argued that my quote from WSWS is "ranting language," "libelous," nor "unreliable." Please reconsider before vandalizing this page again.
Here is a quote further illustrating my point from the second article you linked to: "Except for their own opinions, I'd say almost certainly not. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am merely quoting the opinion of a website that broadly represents the viewpoint of the Trotskyist movement. Considering Detroit's labor movement roots their opinion on Mr. Orr is pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truman Starr (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the inquiry at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Biased Editing of Kevyn Orr biography.3F, I believe that World Socialist Web Site is completely biased but is notable enough for a statement of opinion to be listed with in-text attribution. Reliability for statements of fact versus reliability or notability for statements of opinion are two different things. Location (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for weighing in! Your contribution is much appreciated. Could you sign your post next time please? Truman Starr (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where I failed to sign. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Biased_Editing_of_Kevyn_Orr_biography.3F. Thanks. Terence7 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose quote inclusion per WP:RS and WP:NPOV in relation to WP:BLP. User:The Gnome makes good arguments on these points, and these are well-exemplified by Truman Starr's parallel examples. However, I reject that there is overall consensus that The World Socialist Website is overall biased. I merely posit that a statement is not made true by the fact that you can reference it; it must still be factual for inclusion or otherwise significant (and specifically indicated as not a fact). --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion and Truman Starr's arguments. Fox News is equidistantly from neutral or balanced reporting, nonetheless everything from Fox is a "reliable source". Let's talk about double standards and bias towards certain views! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.113.192 (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/korr-m16.html
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kevyn Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kevyn Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevyn_Orr&oldid=1206766490"