| Revision as of 16:48, 25 April 2015 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →Biased sources with conflict of interest← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:51, 25 April 2015 edit undoStrivingsoul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users841 edits →Biased sources with conflict of interestNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :: Well, like I said, those are what the sources with the conflict of interest claim, and are rejected by the author. And we don't also have to be "a bunch of Nazis" to point out and admit the blatant bias of the article! ] (]) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | :: Well, like I said, those are what the sources with the conflict of interest claim, and are rejected by the author. And we don't also have to be "a bunch of Nazis" to point out and admit the blatant bias of the article! ] (]) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, David Duke himself claims to be a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. ]. ] (]) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | :::No, David Duke himself claims to be a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. ]. ] (]) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Really? Can you then provide evidence for your claim that Duke himself claims to be so? ] (]) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:51, 25 April 2015
Tags
@Ian.thomson: FYI, an editor dropped a number of tags on the article without a valid rationale. Note that the user was recently blocked per ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have explained my rationale. But where is yours? Strivingsoul (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your rationale is wrong and wrong-headed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Biased sources with conflict of interest
This article has serious problems with neutrality. Considering the book topic, having most sources belonging to the very same views and institutions that the author criticizes in the book, makes the article a worst example of bias and conflict of interest:
- 5 out of 9 references are ADL, the very organization that the author strongly criticizes in the book!
- Vallentine Mitchell also seems like a quite partisan Jewish pub.
- At least 4 out of 6 explicitly named authors are also Jewish.
Moreover, the article also fails to mention the political office that the author has held in the past, Louisiana House of Representative; and the history doctorate he holds.
Therefore, I added POV, one source, and ref improve tags until the article is balanced and completed by POVs of the author himself, and sources with less bias and conflict of interest. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're talking about giving artificial prominence to a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. No thanks, we at Misplaced Pages are not a bunch of Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, like I said, those are what the sources with the conflict of interest claim, and are rejected by the author. And we don't also have to be "a bunch of Nazis" to point out and admit the blatant bias of the article! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, David Duke himself claims to be a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing this topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Can you then provide evidence for your claim that Duke himself claims to be so? Strivingsoul (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, David Duke himself claims to be a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing this topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, like I said, those are what the sources with the conflict of interest claim, and are rejected by the author. And we don't also have to be "a bunch of Nazis" to point out and admit the blatant bias of the article! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)