| Revision as of 00:59, 7 January 2005 edit67.70.95.17 (talk) Criticism in articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:18, 8 January 2005 edit undoDejvid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,660 edits →Criticism in articlesNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| Take a look at ], ], ], ], ], ] and more. Criticisms are standard in wikipedia and there's no reason why IS Canada should be immune. ] 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) | Take a look at ], ], ], ], ], ] and more. Criticisms are standard in wikipedia and there's no reason why IS Canada should be immune. ] 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Judging from the way the British SWP behaves, I am sure | |||
| that everything in it is quite accurate. But it just reads like | |||
| the reporting of a lot of petty feuds. | |||
| I did look at the ] page. It didn't seem | |||
| to have descended into that kind of pettiness and yet it too | |||
| is disputed. ] 00:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:18, 8 January 2005
This may be the best way to avoid a constant cut and paste war. If changes are made then please keep the NPOV alert for this section.
I see no debate here, if you want community comment the least you should do is clearly state your viewpoints on this discussion page and try to discuss things first. --fvw* 05:14, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
When you are putting up lies, and backing them up with lies by a bias 'journalist' at NOW magazine, it still is a lie. I have not removed all the criticisms, as you can see, while others keep on putting in comments that are blatently inaccurate, such as saying that SPHR does not have public meetings. No other page, even OCAPs, has so much time committed to different organizations opinions. That is not what an encyclopedia is for.
Response
Please read the NPOV policy. NPOV does *NOT* mean that no opinions or criticisms can appear. Citing a published source is completely consistent with Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't think criticism appears in articles I suggest you read more Misplaced Pages articles, particularly those on political organizations and topics. Please do not remove things just because they quote individuals or organizations the IS doesn't like.
As for Toronto SPHR. You can easily disprove the allegation by saying when the next public membership meeting (as opposed to a public forum) of Toronto SPHR is but members of York SPHR and other groups like Al-Awda have accused Toronto SPHR of being secretive, not having open membership and shutting out people critical of the IS. 67.70.95.17 18:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RESPONSE
In order to stop this back and forth I have left the material that I believe inaccurate and malicious but have included the NPOV warning because of the contentious material. Please keep this here in order to avoid the cut and paste battle.
Two points will be made: Firstly, quoting an opinionative article from NOW magazine that is biased and inaccurate is not standard either on Misplaced Pages or other scholarly encylcopedias. In fact the entire criticism section is full of very limited opinion and with a tone that is more appopriate on the pages of Workers Vanguard than an encylopedic website.
Secondly, in reference to SPHR, the passage written refers to public meetings, not public members meetings. In respect to the organizational structure of SPHR Toronto, the organizing committee is made of representatives from the various chapters across Toronto, including U of T, U of T Mississauga, and York. U of T's groups decide on their representatives democratically, and I would hope York does as well. In fact, only one IS member is on the committee (how dominating!) As to certain people being pushed away because they are not "pro-IS" this is baseless. Recently, an individual from York was expelled because of repeated complaints of harrasment by Muslim women and this was a decision initiated not by any IS member, but someone originating from SPHR Montreal.
I have looked at various poltical entries on Misplaced Pages and none spend to much time on sectarian criticisms. This amount of verbiage here is not often paralleled.
Criticism in articles
Take a look at Communist Party USA, Lyndon LaRouche, New Alliance Party, Workers Revolutionary Party, J. Posadas, Socialist Workers Party (USA) and more. Criticisms are standard in wikipedia and there's no reason why IS Canada should be immune. 67.70.95.17 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Judging from the way the British SWP behaves, I am sure that everything in it is quite accurate. But it just reads like the reporting of a lot of petty feuds. I did look at the Lyndon LaRouche page. It didn't seem to have descended into that kind of pettiness and yet it too is disputed. Dejvid 00:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)