Talk:OneVoice Movement

Autobiography

This article uses the first person, and is very praising of the organisation. It is full of POV words, and looks like it has been copy and pasted from somewhere. Also, there is no certainty of notability, and no sources cited. Please sort these problems out. J Milburn 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

first thing is to get the sources in, and check that you didnt copy--if you did you MUST rewrite.DGG 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first person and the praising and POV stuff - feel free to do further edits. The org is clearly notable they were at Davos, have a website, and are all over the web and press. The entire article can be sourced to the OneVoice website, I don't see any copyvio problems. -- Stbalbach 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please specify which guideline specifically you are citing that this article requires a notability tag that is not already satisfied. Do you want mention of the movement in the press? [1] I kind of feel like the notability tag is not being used in good faith here, this group was at Davos (if you know what that is), look at sites home web page and press releases, a cursory glance will show that this group is notable. If your just trolling for citations than I suggest the tag is not being used in good faith but rather to make a WP:POINT. -- Stbalbach 13:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right then, if you are certain that this group is notable, then please provide some third party sources. As you are concerned about the use of the notability tag, I have added the tag requesting third party sources specifically, as well as the uncat tag, because this could use some categories. J Milburn 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently sourced better than most articles on Wikipedia, which have no citations at all. I'm not saying it's great or couldn't be improved but it doesn't merit a nag tag. I would suggest if your serious about really wanting to improve the article to just do some google searches and help out and contribute instead of the hands off nag tag approach. -- Stbalbach 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently sourced better than most articles on Wikipedia. The states of other articles -- and that's arguable, to begin with -- are irrelevant to this article. The sources you do have are primarily from the subject and relatively trivial for what purports to be such an important organization. --Calton | Talk 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That is your opinion. If you think the article is not notable than please take it to WP:AFD as the next step. -- Stbalbach 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

At present this article reads like an uncritical regurgitation of One Voice propaganda. PatGallacher (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a relatively small group with not a lot of information about it around. I might criticize the fact that they cancelled the rallies in Israel which were one of their few opportunities to get their voice heard, just because they thought the rally in Palestine was dangerous. Some might also criticize their use of polling to change public opinion and the methodologies or interpretations of their recent polls. But overall, I believe they're a good group. At my university, both Jewish and Muslim student groups promoted their event, which I think is a good sign. --AFriedman (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, more objectivity needed. Thanks AFriedman for that perspective. OneVoice CEO Marc Ginsberg just gave a fascinating talk on VOA News, Press Conference USA, opinionated and articulate. Would like to know if this group is as heroic as they seem. Good luck finding anyone on the planet who's neutral on anything to do with their business, but if anyone can Wikipedia can. All the more reason this article needs NPOV. Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality and truth

Writing that Palestinians don't want peace and sourcing it to an old opinion letter written by a non-expert and sent to a small organization while not commenting on Israeli's low desire for peace should be unacceptable to all editors here.

I realize that there are a lot of editors coming to wikipedia for the wrong reasons and that they have made it difficult for editors not interested enough to game the rules like they do to counter their shit editing but I will do it even if a dumbshit admin blocks because they can't understand the spirit of the rules. Of 19 (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Of 19: I welcome suggestions for other better sources on this organization. I added some more citations and changed the wording of OneVoice Movement#Criticism. While you evidently would prefer the section removed, do you find the current wording acceptable, or do you have recommendations for other changes? Daask (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)