Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roscelese (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 1 January 2011 (→Talk:Crisis pregnancy center: stop wasting everyone's time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a simplified system to request comment on articles, policies, etc. Requests made on this board will be transferred to the appropriate place by a volunteer. Do not use this page to request comment on users, administrators, or bots; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct for that.

Baloch people

Hello, recently I have been having conflict with another editor over the title image of the page Baloch people. I understand that the image needs reference but what I do not understand is that the previous article on the same people contained so much of unreferenced and bias information but there was no intervention for many years. And since that article was replaced there has not been much healthy contribution and instead when I try to do something about it, my work is simply deleted by saying it is unreferenced, while I have provided sources to all my contribution.

Now the current title image undermines the article and when I change it, it is reverted. I think this article needs some attention from outside. When looking at the issue please also consider the geography of the people this article is about and the challenges that they face. From my research these people are a minority in all their present geography, largely uneducated (which also means little or no knowledge of the internet) and are currently under war. In that case it becomes very hard for me to keep working on it.

You may also want to have a look at the articles of majority forming people living adjacent the Baloch people. For example, Pashtoon people, Punjabi people.

Thanks for your help. Usualphonexs (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Al Golden, new coaching position

In the coaching segment of the Al Golden article, there is a line stating that Al Golden will now be taking his talents to South Beach. This is incorrect. The University of Miami is located in the city of Coral Gables, Florida, not on or near South Beach. These neighborhoods have very different cultures and are considered very different by locals. Please correct this. Miami is not just "South Beach".

History of The United States Marine Corps

In the article I found what seem to be discrepancies and a major omission. Any number of sources state unequivocally that The Continental Marines were founded on November 10, 1775. And that Captain Nicholas' second in command 1st Lt Isaac Craig recruited 63 Marines at Tun's Tavern in Philadelphia. While the original building is long gone the Historical Society of Pennsylvania has provided ample evidence of its existence near Dock St. It is to be expected that each of the four original officers probably went to four separate taverns to recruit Marines along the waterfront. Every year there is a major Marine celebration at a tavern on Oregon Avenue in South Philly where Marines have congregated for many years on November 10th. The Marines then joined Commodore Esek Hopkins squadron and made a successful amphibious landing on New Providence Island. They also gave a good account during the "Glasgow" incident which was blown out of all proper propriety for political reasons. Having spent a great deal of time on the water in fog you can become quickly disoriented. That notwithstanding, you could not pick out your own brother at 50 feet, let alone definitively identify a ship at 100 yards.

General Cadwalader ordered the Marines under his command to find out if it was safe to make a night crossing over the Delaware. A group of Marines shoved off slightly north of Pennsbury Manor and landed in New Jersey just south of the Assunpink Creek. Upon finding the area quiet Captain Craig ordered one of the boats back to Pennsylvania so that he could report to Cadwalader that it was safe to cross. Cadwalader refused to cross claiming all sorts of ridiculous objections. (Hence the Philly area terminology of a coward being a Cad.) The Marine officer thereupon recrossed the river and extracted his men according to the Cad's orders. Upon arrival back in Pennsylvania General Cadwalader decided to send the Marines back across the river and secure a beachhead for him for his movement at dawn by which time an infuriated General Of The Armies George Washington had already taken Trenton. The Cad's only accomplishment was to roust a small contingent of enemy troops at Assunpink Creek later in the morning. General Washington abruptly sent the Cad back to Philadelphia while he took the Marines and some Pennsy troops to Princeton. The Marines having never faced a bayonet charge by British Regulars panicked. The brilliant, and gallant General Hugh Mercer rode in among them and rallied the Marines at the cost of his life. Captain Craig thereupon was unwillingly conscripted into the Army serving until the end of the war in 1783.

My name is Walter S. Gee III and I am Isaac Craig's lineal descendant by right of primogeniture. I am first and foremost a researcher and second a writer. You can reach me at s<redacted> or at <redacted> My phone is <redacted> and I live in Copperhill, TN 37317-0423. Should you wish to check out the above your first stop should be The Historical Society of Pennsylvania on Locust St in Philly. Your next stop should be the Carnegie Mellon Library in Pittsburgh, PA. I also located a great deal of information at the Philadelphia Free Public Library. I would also refer you to the National Archives where I also found a great deal of information.

Respectfully Yours, brother walt gee

Even if that's all true, it must be sourced to proper reliable sources; that's your job, not ours. I will also point out that the phrase "lineal descendant by right of primogeniture" is gibberish. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonentities (self-)inserted into article text

Too many authors of highly dubious notability are prominently named in the body text, e.g. "..but journalist Sally Student writes that....". This looks like mere self-advertisement, but it is impracticable for an ordinary educated editor to judge the non-notability of such authors and their writings. Is there or should there be a Policy, please, to justify removal of proper names of secondary sources from the text of articles, to the references or footnotes? Jezza (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

In order to become an affiliate of some CPCs organizations a CPC's staff and volunteers have to be willing to sign a statement of faith. Is it acceptable synthesis that into text that reads that "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian" and allege work-place discrimination? - Schrandit (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you can properly source it to verifiable reliable sources (in which case it's not synthesis at all). "Many" is a weasel word we discourage editors from leaning upon. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit fails to mention that the institutions that require this statement of faith are the largest in the USA and Canada respectively, affiliating with well over one thousand centers, and that we also cite unaffiliated centers that require personnel to be Christian. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have sources that say Christianity was a requisite for employment? - Schrandit (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Did you read the article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. It is acceptable to say "many CPCs require their staff to be Christian" since we have these references which require the volunteer to be a "mature Christian", "mature believers" at a "Christian-based ministry", or sign a "Statement of Faith and Sanctity of Life" to work for a firm which has been said by a reporter to "adhere firmly to Christianity and the pro-life position" through the "Statement of Faith and Sanctity of Life" already mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are all volunteer positions and affiliations. Those do not verify the legally weight claims of workplace discrimination. - Schrandit (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because a company that requires volunteers to be Christian is definitely run by Jews and atheists - but that quibble doesn't really matter, since even without those centers, we still have Care Net and CAPSS, which account for well over a thousand CPCs and which specify that paid workers must also comply with said statement of faith. Care to try another argument? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source or not? - Schrandit (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to suppose that Care Net and CAPSS are lying about making every employee and volunteer of every affiliate sign a statement of faith in Jesus? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The staff in question are not employees of Care Net of CAPSS. Our current text states "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Do you or do you not have a reliable source that can verify that text? - Schrandit (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If they are representing the CPC, serving its purposes, the question of whether they are volunteers or paid employees is unimportant. The word staff includes both. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is me, BTW, I changed usernames in case you didn't know. The question as to whether they are volunteers or paid staff is incredibly important. If Christianity is a requisite for employment this is workplace discrimination. If we allege workplace discrimination without reason (not only would that fail WP:V) that is defamation. Do we have a source which states that Christianity is a requisite for employment? - Haymaker (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of workplace discrimination will only be placed in the article if there are explicit allegations, not implied allegations. Such allegations do not stop us from saying that staff are required to sign a statement of religious faith. We are not trying to lead the reader to a synthesis; we are simply describing the situation to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you could get more explicit than "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Whats wrong with just spelling out the affiliation process? - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

More explicit is "CPCs have been accused by xx organization or person as violating the laws of workplace discrimination." That's what is needed to place such allegations into the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If they even exist, right now we just state it as fact. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schrandit/Haymaker, your advocacy might have a more valid basis if the standards of affiliation didn't explicitly specify that paid staff also had to comply with the statement of faith, and they might be more reasonable if CPCs as religious organizations weren't exempt from workplace discrimination laws. Do you have any real arguments? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. - You have a source that says that the CPCs in question are religious organizations under the tax code?

2. - Assuming that said affiliation was the result of, and continuing impetus for religious workplace discrimination without a source is unacceptable OR and borderline defamation. - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that that's the reason why they feel secure publicly stating that they only allow Christians to work for their centers. But we don't need to know their reasoning. If we find a source that explains their reasoning, we can add it, but knowing the inner workings of their minds isn't necessary in order to add a line about their behavior. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on. You're posting unsourced accusations and I'm support to accept that lack of sources because you think they're hiding it. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone. I'm simply transmitting the content of the sources, which we have no reason to doubt. Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker, we are simply describing how the CPCs conduct themselves. Describing the conduct is not alleging workplace discrimination, even if the kind of conduct described has been prosecuted as workplace discrimination in some times and places. You are getting all balled up worrying about the difference between describing observed behavior and allegations which have not been made. We are free to describe behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're describing how you think CPCs work. We, at present, have no sources that say that Christianity is a requisite for employment at a CPC. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Except documents from the CPCs themselves, who would presumably be the ones to know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Early Form of Priesthood

I am looking for trails of the earliest forms of priesthood.

Tornado Intercept Vehicle

An anonymous editor began removing an entire section from Tornado Intercept Vehicle without explanation other than basically saying "it doesn't belong here." It has been restored and removed a couple more times, now with another editor backing up (or possibly the same person) the anonymous one who started removing the material. The section being removed is about the TVN Dominator, but so far no real justification is given other than "it doesn't belong here since it doesn't have a IMAX camera." It really sounds more like a Storm Chasers fan giving his personal opinion rather than any basis in fact. When asked for sources, the only thing provided is information about the TIV and TIV2; nothing that justifies removing an entire section of the article. A discussion would hopefully resolve this before it deevolves into an edit war. --Rapier108 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)