ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hamid Dabashi

Feticide

I am sorry if I may seem disruptive. I have realised the aforementioned articles connect the concept of abortion with foeticide. I don't think this is correct, and so I guessed that Female foeticide in India should be deleted and rewritten. My goal is not to actually change the POV of the article, more like to make a clear boundary between the actual abortions and foeticide (which is not the same as abortion; only in the medical sense). Feticide can only occur if the fetus was viable; this is the US definition of the term. --92slim (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You wrote Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response

Sigh. I am not referencing poorly sourced material. We have already established that the New York Sun is a reliable source. This material has been on this page for years and nobody has raised any liable or defamation concerns. Please stop harassing me with your false accusations and your self-righteousness. You failed at BLPN twice and now you are raising defamation claims? How much longer are you going to pursue this nonsense.
If you had concerns that this material was libelous, why didn't you bring this up at the beginning (i.e. Why did you only invent this accusation once your attempts at BLPN failed to accomplish your goal). And why, despite it being posted on both website of the New York Sun as well as this Wikipedia article for several years at least, has it not been challenged earlier? Why are you only coming up with this now? Is it because your efforts at BLPN failed and you are looking for new excuse to have your way? Please stop disrupting Wikipedia, and please stop making false accusations against me. Are we going to have to discuss this on every noticeboard in Wikipedia before you will be satisfied?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Jusat to clarify re Yehuda Glick

I checked many sources and could see no evidence that Glick was any of those terms. Since the IPs were refusing to be cogent on the talk page, and editing out attempts to be neutral, that took into consideration Anshel Pfeffer's nuanced and ironic remark, and were popping back in just the one piece from it, it was in my view absolutely necessary to put the full passage from Pfeffer into the note, so that it laid before the editors the actual contexts of all these statements. Edit-warring customarily attracts people, who often do not examine the actual sources but just join in the POV lineup. It was thus a prophylactic measure against superficial opinion-mongering. It was meant as a measure to stop edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTHESIS AND SPECULATION

Uh, no. This:

The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes.[1][2][3][4][5] According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics.[6]

IS TEXTBOOK SYNTHESIS AND POV SPECULATION. Quis separabit? 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SDUT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ McAteer, Michael (June 26, 2004). "Questioning Catholic hierarchy's priorities". Toronto Star.
  3. ^ Jacoby, Susan (May 3, 2004). "The Catholic Church and the Presidential Election: Vatican makes common cause with fundamentalist Protestants". San Francisco Chronicle.
  4. ^ Balz, Dan; Cooperman, Alan (June 4, 2004). "Bush, Pope to Meet Today at the Vatican". Washington Post.
  5. ^ Gibson, David (2007). The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle with the Modern World. HarperCollins. p. 42.
  6. ^ Heyer, Kristin E.; Rozell, Mark J.; Genovese, Michael A. (2008). Catholics and politics: the dynamic tension between faith and power. Georgetown University Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-58901-215-8. Retrieved 18 February 2012.
More