This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion
and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Contemporary
the Contemporary History Task Force
.
November 2015
WP:BLOCK EVASION- edit removed--68.231.26.111 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Not done Requestor indef blocked. --NeilNtalk to me 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reword the refugee blurb to say that more than half of the governors rather than "more than half of the States" who reject the refugees? Since the news article mentioned governors and not formally the states themselves. Might also mention that almost all of them are Republicans. HaEr48 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: The page was unprotected shortly after you posted this request, so you can make the edit yourself. -- John of Reading (talk) [not an admin] 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wording should not use "contentrating" or suggest "concentration camps". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the wording of the Currents Events entry concerned related to APEC Philippines 2015 neutral? 08:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I will attempt to garner consensus regarding the matter. My concern is the potential
concentration camp which is gives the impression that Wikipedia is concluding that the government is committing human rights abuse by siding with human rights groups. There is nothing bias to just say that the Humans Rights Group has reported on the matter. It gives more room for the reader to take sides or remain neutral rather than shoving them the view that the government has definitely round up the homeless ala WWII. Other than me John of Reading has made a revert against the concentration camp version saying that the source used "detained". Also calling: IP 68.231.26.111 who favors the current wording of the entry.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I confirm that I prefer the "detained" wording used by the source, avoiding the historical associations of the "concentrated" wording. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
did you just quote "The statement Xk9 suggest..." = a known sockpuppet of a indefinitely banned bad user??? as if such and editor merits anything but contempt?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify. I just mentioned that I was about to open a discussion regarding the entry and noticed that
edit warning so I'm using this route, the proper route, to settle the disputed entry rather than reverting the entry to my preferred version again and again.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BLOCK EVASION- edit removed--68.231.26.111 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Moving on, attempting to get something from the discussion. I would argue that the link to "concentration camp" is against
NPOV. As I repeatedly said, the article itself (concentration camp) is has pejorative meaning. The wording (including the link) shouldn't side with anyone; both the government and human rights activists. IP 68.231.26.111 argues that it is just calling a spade a spade. Yes technically, they are concentrating street children and homeless people and put them elsewhere but the link is problematic.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: given the connotations of "concentration camp" (thoroughly discussed in its article) we should avoid using that wikilink per WP:NPOV, given we'd be making a personal assessment from a single source and not providing a balancing viewpoint. We should however discuss what the sources say (which apparently the specified source does not claim - even more reason for the removal of the wikilink). If substantial reliable sources treat these as concentration camps, then we need to cover these opinions in a
Thanks for the comment. The source article, while HRW condemned the detainings, it didn't describe the facility where the homeless and street children being detained as "concentration camps". I would revert entry to the previous version with some tweaks (to accurately reflects HRW claims and include the government's denial) and come back if someone still opposes the move.
an international summit. The government denies that the people concerned are being abused and such moves were part of a regular and year-round outreach program. (The New York Times)
This is longer but I believe it accurately summarizes the report.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not done Requestor indef blocked. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
