| Revision as of 01:12, 12 December 2019 editCrossroads (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,547 edits Warning: Three-revert rule on John and Lorena Bobbitt. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:13, 12 December 2019 edit undoRedditor132 (talk | contribs)20 edits →Welcome!Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| I hope you reply to this. {{unsinged|Redditor132}} | I hope you reply to this. {{unsinged|Redditor132}} | ||
| :How in the world do you think personal rant of yours belongs in the lead or in the article at all? It's your personal ranting. The "was acquitted after receiving feminist support" wording is your wording. It is not in the sources. Same goes for your "Subsequently she became a national icon for women and is celebrated publicly to this day" wording. Also see ]. And ] is clear about what belongs in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, not include material not covered lower or random quotes. If you read our ] policy at all, you don't understand it. ] (]) 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | :How in the world do you think personal rant of yours belongs in the lead or in the article at all? It's your personal ranting. The "was acquitted after receiving feminist support" wording is your wording. It is not in the sources. Same goes for your "Subsequently she became a national icon for women and is celebrated publicly to this day" wording. Also see ]. And ] is clear about what belongs in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, not include material not covered lower or random quotes. If you read our ] policy at all, you don't understand it. ] (]) 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::Please explain to me how a neutral stating of the facts of the case constitute a "rant". She was in fact acquitted due to widespread feminist protests and support which did influence the jury, similar to the African American support in the OJ Simpson trial. This is not a "rant" but just the facts of the case. A "rant" would be stating that "an evil abusive jealous woman got away with mutilation because of societal misandry, and the victim was blamed instead". But I didn't write that. I simply wrote what happened in the case and provided a credible source (Which you likely haven't read). What she herself said was the reason for the mutilation on the night she was arrested does have its place in the summary, as does the motivation for any crime in a Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| The original is clearly not NPOV and I can probably guess you will claim that it is. | |||
| == December 2019 == | == December 2019 == | ||
Revision as of 01:13, 12 December 2019
Welcome!
Hello, Redditor132, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to John and Lorena Bobbitt does not conform to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I have read the NPOV guidelines. My question is if you've read them since you're keen on keeping an inflammatory feminist talking point at the front of the article instead of simply allowing the facts of the case to be stated. I hope you reply to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redditor132 (talk • contribs)
- How in the world do you think this personal rant of yours belongs in the lead or in the article at all? It's your personal ranting. The "was acquitted after receiving feminist support" wording is your wording. It is not in the sources. Same goes for your "Subsequently she became a national icon for women and is celebrated publicly to this day" wording. Also see WP:Claim. And WP:Lead is clear about what belongs in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, not include material not covered lower or random quotes. If you read our WP:NPOV policy at all, you don't understand it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how a neutral stating of the facts of the case constitute a "rant". She was in fact acquitted due to widespread feminist protests and support which did influence the jury, similar to the African American support in the OJ Simpson trial. This is not a "rant" but just the facts of the case. A "rant" would be stating that "an evil abusive jealous woman got away with mutilation because of societal misandry, and the victim was blamed instead". But I didn't write that. I simply wrote what happened in the case and provided a credible source (Which you likely haven't read). What she herself said was the reason for the mutilation on the night she was arrested does have its place in the summary, as does the motivation for any crime in a Misplaced Pages article.
The original is clearly not NPOV and I can probably guess you will claim that it is.
December 2019
Your recent editing history at John and Lorena Bobbitt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)