Talk:Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union

Untitled
Nanshu, I think what Norium did was NPOVing, not deleting. Plus you are so famous for right-winged and nationalistic POVness on some political matters, so the original definately needed revision.

Hey, what's wrong? --Nanshu 23:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

=Soman stop your reverting= A portion of the text that read "Critics argue that KTU members downplay the negative aspects of North Korea" was referenced by Rallies have little to do with food safety. The citation does not support such a statement and I have changed the text to reflect what the citation actually states on this subject: "The notoriously xenophobic and anti-American KTU has been given many opportunities to spout off against American beef imports."

I have responded to your reverts by adding 2 further citations that support this matter.

Opinions reflected in citations are allowed per [WP:CIT]. Personal editor opinions are not. Please stop ignoring editing rules and cease your revert warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed only one sentence in the article; "The KTU is also notorious for its xenophobic and anti-American views as well as propagating anti-American sentiment among the student through propaganda activities within the classroom". This sentence is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. The fact that you can google up one guy saying that KTU is "notoriously xenophobic" doesn't mean that it should be stated in the text. It is possible to include criticisms in articles, clearing stating whose opinion the criticism is (For example: "[well-known author] claims that [subject of article] has failed to adress issues relating to...") In this case the text seems to stem from a random gringo resident in South Korea, and frankly I cannot see how his opinion would be of any major importance. --Soman (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Soman, if you didn't know, your or my criticism and opinion of the referenced article is irrelevant. Whether you or I agree with the author of the article is irrelevant.  The reference, even if it's opinion that you do not like, is a perfectly fine citation. It's published by a reputable newspaper. I'm not even the editor that put it in the article.  All that we need to do is to make sure that the sentence of this wiki article ACCURATELY reflects the information contained in the citation.  Furthermore I have responded to your complaint by adding 2 more references that support the claim.  Three proper citations cannot be deleted because of your personal opinion. Please read NPOV and citation rules in the Wikipedia help page if this is new information to you. Editor opinions are not what determines article content.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Melon, you have a highly creative view of what WP:NPOV requires as related to what verifiable and sources are allowed - in the encyclopedic voice, to do.


 * First, describing this union as "pro-North Korea" is ipso facto a violation of NPOV. That is out completely. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a long-standing rule of thumb regarding neutrality in wikipedia. Please refrain from reinserting this text in this form. At best, if you can find sufficient sourcing for this, and you can find them, you can attribute the opinion that they are pro-north korea. I am not sure, however, that an opinion like this, even if widely held, belongs in the lede of the article.


 * Second, the cited text, which I have reverted:


 * "The KTU is also notorious for its xenophobic and anti-American views as well as propagating anti-American sentiment among the student through propaganda activities within the classroom.  ."


 * You have an incorrect view on how to cite in wikipedia. We do not just cite verbatim from sources, but we qualify the sources, and do not speak for them. At worse, we use direct quotes with attribution, at best we atribute the general ideas as opinions in the encyclopedic voice.


 * Perhaps, in this case you can say, "According to XYZ, this union "Relevant quote". But how it is written, it is a classic example of what we call, in wikipedia, synthesis. I read the provided sources, and none of them can be quoted as saying what the reverted edit says. Since these are not "facts" but opinions, they should be attributed as such, not just with sourcing but specific indications that these are not verifiable facts but verifiable opinions.


 * One of the things that separates NPOV from POV presentation is the care taken to show the difference between a verifiable fact, like the height of a mountain or the self-description of a group, and what are verifiable opinions, like describing the mountain as very tall or a group as racist. A verifiable fact is that this is a South Korean Trade union. A verifiable opinion is that it is described as pro-North Korea by some people. The difference lies that the first one is inherently neutral, as it makes no value judgments, whereas the second is inherently a POV and hence requires care when presenting it. I trust and assume that you will see the difference and provide a helpful contribution that enriches the content of this article rather than detracts from the non-negotiable adherence to a neutral point of view we have around here.


 * I hope you understand that no one is trying to hide this information - feel free to find a way to present it in an NPOV fashion, and if you need my assistance by all means ask for it - but your last revert of Soman was unfortunately unacceptable in its current form. The problem is not the sources - we can all agree the Korea Times is a partisan RS - the problem is how the information in these sources is conveyed, which has to be in an NPOV manner. --Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR rules
To user:Melonbarmonster2: Hi. You have reverted others' edits 8 times in the article Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union on June 29, 2001. Please note that it is a violation of the 3RR rule. Hkwon (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)