Talk:Daphne Patai

npov tag removal
I removed the npov tag because there is no discussion on this page at all, much less any discussion that says the article is npov.

We must stop using wikipedia tags and wikipedia policies as weapons. 71.39.78.68 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the person who put the tag on ... but to be fair to the person who did it, the version it was placed on was very POV. Professor Patai herself had done a lot of work on it at that stage, as shown in the history; this was incredibly useful for getting detail, so we owe her thanks, but it did mean that the article was slanted from her perspective. I agree with the removal of the tag from the article in its current form. Metamagician3000 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has re-added the tag without commenting here why and, unfortunately, it is anything but clear what is POV about it. I am re-removing the tag.--Cybermud (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Patai's discovery of the identity of Murray Constantine
Katharine Burdekin says that Patai discovered that "Murray Constantine" was a pseudonym of Burdekin's. This article does not say anything about Patai's discovery. --Jtir (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for POV tag per request by cybermud
Article needs POV and maybe OR tags because it doesn't have citations. Citations are one of three necessary conditions for neutrality. The article is a laundry list of OR right now. Please don't remove the tag. TheLuca (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations are a condition for verifiability not for neutrality. Lack of citations means there should be a references tag not a POV or OR tag. You are conflating references to the beliefs professed by the subject of this biographical article with statements as to the veracity of those beliefs. If I edit the article on Hitler and say that he believed Jews were not human do I need to provide a reference that shows they are, in fact, not human or just a reference to show that he believed that (whether it was true or not)? By your very rationale for adding the tags it is clear they are not appropriate. This is a biographical article. The POV it should very appropriately have when discussing the POV of the article's subject is the very POV of the subject of the article. Disagreeing with the subject's POV does not make the article itself POV. Unless you disagree with what the article says about Daphne Patai as POV the article itself is not POV, it is an accurate categorization of the person the article is about. You are just tagging it because you want references that show that the author's POV is factually accurate and that is not the proper use of the tag in a biographical article.--Cybermud (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)