Silent Lambs in Wikipedia to be deleted (page 2)

Uzzah

I am confused. There was the Dateline TV show that detailed the work of Silent Lambs.. There was the documented protest in Broklyn by Silent Lambs.. What does Wiki need in order to substantiate the item?

nelly136

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2114320.stm silent lambs on non silent lambs site

this kind of thing?

Mythbuster

I'm no expert, but it sounds like they want the "loaded" language out. If there is a way the bulleted items in the campaign section could be rewored, or maybe even take out the campaign section all together and let the Silent Lambs website speak for its self. That would allow the article to stay and still give people a way to learn about the pedophile issue.

Just my opinion.

MrMonroe

There are a couple of books I have with references to Silent Lambs. I'll add those, which will help. The claim so far is that it is biased and without any JW defence to add balance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me the person who listed it for deletion hasn't done it properly, so it doesn't show up on the daily log of articles for deletion, hence it won't actually come up for a decision. It may take another day or two for someone to realize, which provides extra time to come up with the goods.

darthfader

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) policy:

- I think it would be pretty easy to reference links about cases where SL was crucial in exposing the WTBS. Any numbers or facts about SL would certianly be good...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

A simple formulation

Policy shortcut : WP:ASF

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, [ 1 ] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". [ 2 ] A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

-----

Darth Fader

wha happened?

You have to be fucking kidding. JW's are trying to remove a site that protects their children. What kind of fucked up parents want to remove a watchdog organization that protects children

WTWizard

Another blatant attempt to stop the truth about the cancer from showing through. Silentlambs is a valuable site, helping those who were victims of witless pedophiles to speak out against the policies that allow pedophiles to do their sxxx unnoticed. So the witlesses do all they can to get links to that site deleted, because they do not want to be embarrassed or have to alter their policies.

Yet, they expect everyone to believe whatever their Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger tells them to.

Gerard

Please go to this page and declare that you are against its deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silentlambs

and write a short statement to the effect that: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. ([[WP:V]]).

stillajwexelder

Surely the BBC program PANORAMA mentioned it and Bill Bowen was interviewed. The Guardian newspaper would also be good

Lady Lee

what aboutthis site. We have plenty of things to cite

Silent Lambs in Wikipedia to be deleted

A simple formulation

Share this