Talk:The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Section on alleged propaganda contains original research.
editthe section on alleged propaganda contains original research. It looks like somebody has watched it and has written their own opinion on it, as there are no citations to the ideas they are claiming the film shows. Perhaps this section should be deleted if it cannot be amended.Florencia65 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the section referred to above consisted of original research, and have removed it. Robofish (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that this article would still benefit from a section about criticism of the film, but that section you removed was definitely original research and had little to support the claims it made. It was strikingly similar to the format of a high school persuasive essay. -- Benjwgarner (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Criticism section.
editWhy are irrelevant "journalists" from unknown newspapers given space in articles? Nobody has ever heard of James Davis from the South Florida Sun Sentinel. Clearly a desperate attempt to find criticism against the film. Bobinisrael (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality problems introduced
edit@Gothamwriter: your edits are introducing massive neutrality problems that were previously not present in this article. I am not going to say it was neutral before you arrived, but it's worse now. Please revert and discuss your proposals and look up our policies on what kind of tone to use, and words to avoid, in order to minimize bias imparted in Wikipedia's voice, to such a controversial topic. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've
reverted the changesrestored to the last good version. The lead needs to attribute the views to the filmmakers, not state them as facts in Wiki voice. Multiple changes were made in a single edit, these should be discussed individually. –dlthewave ☎ 12:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
All the additions are sourced! You are violating wikipedia policy. What are the neutrality problems? Be specific. Its wrong of you to revert all my changes and I request that you restore them or begin an arbitration process. Thanks. Gothamwriter (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Here are my specific objections::
- Lead:
- - Changed summary from attributed opinion statements to claims made in Wiki voice
examining the threat
,the document contains plans
. - - Removed
the filmmakers contend
, which is necessary for context. - - Sources disclaimer to the film itself via YouTube.
Avoid any misconception
is unsourced. - - Unexplained removal of NYPD controversy from lead.
- Production:
- - Added off-topic bio of narrator.
- -
Leftist
not found in the source. - - Added PR Newswire source, which is simply a republished press release, not RS.
- NYPD controversy
- - Describe NY City Council members as "liberal," term not found in source.
A number of changes were made at once. The contested items will need to be discussed individually before they are restored. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)