This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MerrimacVI (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 3 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:38, 3 January 2007 by MerrimacVI (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This page appears to be regularily white washed by UPOC employees to remove criticisms of their company. Edits are made without any discussion on the talk page.
- The criticism section essentially uses weasel words and original research; the sole 'citations' are a boycott site, which is going to have serious POV issues. I've cleaned it up some, removing serious accusations whose sole citations are boycottupoc.com and adding {{cn}}. Veinor (ヴエノル) 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything claimed by the Boycott Upoc site is backed by evidence on the site, most of it with links and screengrabs from the Upoc site itself. Although NPOV is not apparent in the criticisms, it is a counterbalance to the original content of the article which was nothing other than an advertisment. I added more citations from the BU site which directly back the assertions in the criticisms section. The "NPOV" of the article is achieved via inclusion of the criticisms but any re-write suggestions are welcome. MerrimacVI 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Veinor's goal seems to be removal of any citations from the Boycott Upoc website. This is the same goal Upoc itself has had, in its various attempts to whitewash their own article without discussion. The links to BU should stay, as it is a factual and credible source of information. MerrimacVI 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The BU site cites news sources, Justice Department press releases, and emails from Upoc itself. There is also some original research, however. I believe the citation should stay at minimum on the paragraph about the arrests. MerrimacVI 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then cite the news sources and press releases directly. Veinor (ヴエノル) 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the source links are dead links, this is why BU archived and screengrabbed them. Please take a look at my edit I am about to do, see if it passes muster.MerrimacVI 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Suppose that's because they were never valid to begin with? You could always look them up in the Wayback Machine; see Misplaced Pages:Using the Wayback Machine. Veinor (ヴエノル) 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Two of the sources, one from the Hartford Courant and those from the Mobile Register, were removed before they were archived by archive.org. The Wayback Machine takes six months, sometimes longer, to archive pages. These media sources remove stories as a matter of course, to save space on their servers. MerrimacVI 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to find a citation that's from a reliable sources. Veinor (ヴエノル) 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is merely an advertisement then, and should be removed. It was placed on Wiki for purely promotional purposes. The BU site is the ONLY source which puts together all the missing pieces, and media links are included in the articles there. If Upoc belongs here, BU does as well. MerrimacVI 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the intro is written from a POV perspective; but it's not so blatant that it should be removed. Besides, I don't object to the criticism, as long as you can source it. Or are you saying that you can't back it up? Veinor (ヴエノル) 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please look at most recent edit, see if this is an appropriate compromise. MerrimacVI 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, no; it's too weaselly for my tastes. Essentially, if we allow statements in because of 'some say'-type statements, we allow anybody to add anything if they say 'Some people say that X'. Veinor (ヴエノル) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Using that logic, the entire criticisms section should be removed, as Upoc has numerous times attempted to do. Several whitewashings by Upoc have been done to this article, only to be reverted by Wiki editors. It seems inconsistent for you to be overriding past reversions by other editors.
The article is a complete and total promotional advertisment without the criticisms section. MerrimacVI 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You have completely whitewashed the article, as Upoc wished. I am sure they thank you. MerrimacVI 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)