Content deleted Content added
Line 366:
Obviously no research or care was put with those edits, but someone who's way more experienced than me reminded me that "misguided or ill-considered" edits aren't considered vandalism. He told me to discuss it here on the talk page. So hum yay, I don't see why those edits are necessary, let alone justifiable. [[User:Jean-Philippe|Jean-Philippe]] 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:I agree, the problem being that there are so many of them it's hard to straigthen everything short of a full revert. Considering the intricateness of the edit and the inappropriateness of most of it, I would support a revert.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. You guys are so wedded to your own POV that even a relatively content-neutral edit gets called "POV"!. This [[WP:LEAD]] does not use summary style, is full of weasel words, and is simply written poorly. Here is a change-by-change explanation:
*''"funded almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million members"'' -> ''"is funded by its members"'' -- simplification. If you think the lead needs to say "1 million members", then say that. PETA is member-funded (rather than, e.g. foundation- or government-funded) - can't see how this is POV;
*''"affiliated offices in Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan."'' -> ''"affiliated offices in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere."'' -- clear violation of summary style to list these in the lead -- a long list adds nothing to the point that PETA is a global organization. Also a simplifying NPOV edit;
*''"the killing of animals regarded as pests"'' -> ''"pest control"'' -- this is what its wiki-linked to! The killing of animals regarded as pests is a long-winded way of saying pest control, and its spelled out in the article. Again, summary style!!
*''"aims to inform the public of its position through"'' -> ''"activities include"'' -- "aims to inform the public" ?? what an awkward piece of double-speak. What is advertising other than public influence/information. Is there any chance of misunderstanding in the shorter, pithier wording??
*''"criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees"'' -- "some of", "some of" -- clear weasel words. Virtually all of PETA's campaigns have been criticized, but that's not the point. "Some of" is a useless weasel phrase, and isn't needed. Again, the meaning does not change;
The only change that could be argued is the identification in the LEAD of ALF as a terrorist org. It has been so designated, and we include that in the lead for many, many other orgs, so it seems appropriate here, as it is important to the summary style. So, don't just revert -- try to '''read''' the change and then read [[WP:LEAD]] and then take a writing class. Not every copyedit is a challenge to your sacred POV. -- [[User:207.118.2.207|207.118.2.207]] 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
| |||