Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 13 July 2013

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Hookup culture

This substantial new article (created June 16) contains many references and quite a bit of useful material, but it is essentially an essay aiming to convince the reader that "hookups" are a bad thing. The article needs a major pov-cleansing. I would be willing to do some work on it if there are other editors who are willing to get involved, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one dispute with the article creator. (I have also raised the problem on the article's talk page.) Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

North American Union

North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Saruman38

Saruman insists that this conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory, and that the conspiracy theorists who make a fuss about it are not conspiracy theorists; he defiantly posts to my talk page that he's going to keep vandalizing the article to remove the sourced information he doesn't agree with:"stop sending me comments that I do not read. I will keep editing the North American Union article whether you like it or not". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Modelzone

Modelzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This U.K. retailer has recently gone into bankruptcy. An account named User:Modelzone has been edit-warring to restore the "official version" of the bankruptcy and aftermath; since the account has been blocked as an obvious role account, I think some editor not associated with that block should look at the current version to make sure that the account is NPOV-compliant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place as never posted here before, but the edits being undone by Modelzone appear to have been lifted directly from the Daily Telegraph here and thus he was removing a Copyvio as well. Given the users name, there would seem a clear conflict of interest though. Current article appears okay at first glance. - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 09:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Iranian news agencies

Hi all,
There is a slight disagreement over at List of Iranian news agencies. I feel that some items should not be added to the list because they're not Iranian and not news agencies, giving the impression that they're just an excuse to link to something controversial. The other editor, of course, disagrees and feels that they're valid additions. Other suggestions would be welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Toluca Lake, Los Angeles

Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article?

According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city.

The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles#.3D_ARE_YOU_KIDDING_ME.3F_.3D. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 St. Louis Cardinals season

I feel that the article 2013 St. Louis Cardinals season is not written from a NPOV. For example, the sections "Spring Training" and "Regular Season" just contain small milestones and notes about the team, a section that is NOT on the season pages of other MLB franchises. Not only that, but the sections seem rather biased and many praise the achievements of the Cardinals. I feel this section is unnecessary and not neutral. I'd like to hear what others think. Mpejkrm (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

There is some disagreement over the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" which was added by User:Memills. The section consists of a list of books that allegedly contain rebuttals to the criticisms described in the section "Evolutionary psychology#Reception". It is not explain how all the critics are wring and which criticisms are misunderstanding. Instead, it is stated that critics misunderstand evolutionary psychology, period. This was discussed on the article talk page: . I argued that the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" violates WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV because the the subsections of the "Reception" section already include specific rebuttals and adding a final blanket rebuttal creates a biased criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure. Two other users, Logic prevails and 121.72.116.250, seemed to agree that the section creates a pro-EP bias.

Btw, the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology has the same problem with excessive "rebuttals": . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a lost cause I gave up long ago. I've made the same arguments at length at the talkpage. MEMills owns that article and has turned it into a EP apologia blog. The Criticism article is a POV fork that was split out beccause he wouldn't allow any of it in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution