Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Northrop Grumman/archive1

Comment move from project page[edit]

(I have cut this info from the project, most of it is off-topic and thus distracting--Commander Keane 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should still try to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Henrik 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izuko: NPOV violations is not vandalism. Gflor e s^Talk 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. Izuko 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"OligopolyWatch is not a partisan activist site, by the way." - Sarah crane. That's ironic considering you don't know the meaning of what Oligarchy means? Even the guy that manages that site admits it.

"Are oligopolies sinister? Very possibly. But I think it's more useful to see how and why they work than simply rail against globalism and greed. While there are hatefully crooked businessmen (take any set of former Enron or Tyco executives for a start), most oligopolies are based on struggles for survival, not a result of innate evil. Like those proverbial sharks moving forward, businesses either grow or fail, and since most mature markets have limited growth potential, companies often grow by buying other companies. If nothing else, it's fascinating to see how they do it."

Neutral? Hmm, I don't know, Bob. Sarah crane says it's neutral so it's probably true. - ViriiK 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, my. Now where is this coming from? Where do you get the idea that I "don't know the meaning of what Oligarchy means?" Surely you wouldn't be accusing me of ignorance, would you? That would be very impolite. And one would not expect to see such snideness and incivility from one who has made such a recent issue over presumed incivility towards her. Surely that cannot be the case, and I simply misunderstand you. Izuko 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't leave that comment. ViriiK did. Sarah crane 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I do rather rely having the things said by someone actually having been said by them. Izuko 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no problems with the controversy section - controversy sections do, by their very nature, cite from controversial sources, and one does not expect to see all-out praise of the company/group in question in these sections. I would be interested to see the relevant policy re: "NPOV is the number one rule of Wikipedia, and is never optional". My thinking is, if articles are going to present the point of views of other people, don't the sources cited need to be POV by definition? Izuko, I am concerned that you are just engaging in a war of words here. The only edit you appear to have made is removing the entire controversy section [1]. This is a wiki; If you truly believe in improving Wikipedia articles, I suggest you hit the Edit button and add what you think are reliable sources and comments. (Of course, these will be subject to the same scrutiny as Sarah crane's work). Removing text (and entire sections) is only detrimental to the article and its contributors. If you think that a citation is required, please use the appropriate template: {{citation needed}}. Thanks, Tangot a ngo 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would be right here From Jimbo Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example."

A contraversy sections should not quote unreliable sources. While they may be interesting or amusing, they are not encyclopediac. Again, we go back to the idea of citing the Westboro Baptist Church on a page on homosexuality. Yes, they have their opinions, but the thoughts of a group of professional trolls are of no interest, save on a page devoted specifically to them. Nor would we be too terribly concerned on what the neo-nazis say about jews, and would not include their opinions in a page on judiasim or quote that "some have accused jews of using the blood of young palestinians to make their matzah" as if such claims deserved equal weight, just because "some people" make that claim.

And, yes, the only edit I've made was removing what needed to be removed. I've been rather busy in other areas, and not all of my contributions on every subject are in the form of edits. Some of the ones I've been the busiest on are ones that I haven't actually edited. Maybe you can explain to me how this disqualifies me for commenting? Izuko 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I have removed a redundant pipe character from your comment above as the link did not work when clicked. As for the comment you quoted, I am sad to say you have entirely misquoted Jimmy Wales out of context. The subject is Articles about ourselves; indeed, a few clicks back through the thread will reveal that Jimmy Wales is in fact talking about the fact that NPOV needs to be upheld even in articles about contributors (and, in this case, himself). I'm sure you will agree that from the context and language, Jimmy Wales is not saying that articles dealing with controversies must cite completely NPOV sources. I am also saddened by the fact that you regard the phrases "NPOV" and "unreliable" to be interchangeable. Take for example the CIA World Factbook that so many Wikipedia articles cite (and indeed, derive from). The Factbook is a U.S. government publication, and is known to be extremely POV - it's written from the U.S. government's point of view, for use by U.S. government officials. However, does that make it unreliable? Sure, "A contraversy sections should not quote unreliable sources" (sic.) - that's true. But should they not quote POV (non-NPOV) sources? You haven't answered that question yet. As for your references to articles about religion, I think I would include both sides of the argument, if that's appropriate for the article. I'm not a particular fan of criticizing people, but still, I feel that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a right - and a need - to quote both sides of any argument fairly and without bias. I do not see how Sarah crane, diligently writing an article to fulfil that purpose, has to have her work unceremoniously removed simply to satisfy somebody's POV. About your last comment, care to quote me - when did I say your lack of editing "disqualifies [you] for (sic.) commenting"? I realize that everbody is busy and that their whole life does not revolve around editing an encyclopedia - indeed, that applies to me also - but I would prefer, and I sincerely ask, you to do the work rather than asking somebody else to do it for you. Thank you. -- Tangot a ngo 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say I am quoting Jimbo out of context. However, is that, or is it not his policy? Some things that people say cannot be hidden behind a veil of context, in as much as they are meant to be universal, which this clearly is. The context, in this case, does not change that fact, nor does it mitigate the fact that NPOV is the rule on wikipedia.

If you think I've taken NPOV and unreliable to mean the same thing, you haven't been reading what I wrote. First of all, it doesn't even make sense. Why would something that's not POV be unreliable, and what have I said to suggest that? Regardless, there are many sources that are unreliable, regardless of their POV. Just as there are sources that are reliable regardless of their POV. Would you list the Westboro Baptist Church as being a reliable source? If not, then your criticisim of me falls rather flat.

If you want to quote both sides of the argument (and I notice that you haven't exactly been too critical of Sarah's failure to do so), that's appropriate. But there comes a point where you get sides that have no need to be quoted, such as the "blood matzah" that many muslims accuse jews of. As I've said before, there are quite a few "many people"s in the world, and if you're going to give them all their say here, then you'll end up with a wikipedia that's not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Sarah's work was not reverted to fill someone's POV, but rather to remove her own POV. If you're going to level that charge at me, then please have the courtesy to back it up. Otherwise I will kindly ask you to not make the accusation again.

You bring up the point that the only edit I have made was a reversion. I can only assume you believe that has some signficance, or else you wouldn't have mentioned it. No, it's not full-on criticism, but rather insinuation. I have little patience for that. You have also suggested that I'm too lazy to do the work (no, you didn't use the term, but that's the gist of what you were saying). However I made the edit I saw necessary, and I did so in the spirit of the Bold-Revert-Discuss process (which specifically says that the editor should not simply re-add what was reverted, and yet I'm the one being criticized for following the process).Izuko 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]