Talk:Nonperson

message: dictionary.com
meriam webster uses nonperson spelling.
--Calm 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?

message: This is a good encyclopedic topic and the original contributions provides a decent framework for building a good article.  It is a little concerning that none of the material is backed up by sources and some of the language used reflects a POV.  
Some examples from the version as of 5 June 2005:
* "Though rare, there are examples of "non-persons" even in the so-called "western" industrialized countries."  In this case, "so-called" reflects POV.
* "Such can be the case of a state versus homeless or marginal people or it can be extended and applied versus an entire nation or ethnic group, as it often happens in wars or other conflicts. This was the case for example of the Nazi state versus the Jews or of most societies versus the Gypsies...".  Here the text is equating the treatment of homeless people, prostitutes, ethnic groups, and European Jews in World War II.  
There's also a fair amount of broad generalization to narrow down and cite.
Tobycat 04:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV cleanup

message: I also removed the copy edit flag because the spelling, grammar and punctuation all seems correct. It might be able to use reorganization or removal of POV, but I think it's fine copy. --Habap 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Editing

message: I've deleted the POV warning because it all seemed pretty NPOV to me. If anyone disagrees please feel free to add it back in.
--81.129.111.90 19:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted POV warning 

message: I've addeed a reference to Orwell under the "erased from existence" category. There's striking similarity between "non-person" and his word "unperson". Kazhivlad 22:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' Reference 

message: This is interesting article, but it does not cite anything, whereas some statements are questionable. Can anyone provide some sources, please?Biophys 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any sources?

message: This article deals with two different subjects:
* People who are dehumanized and denied rights ("a person or a member of a group who lacks, loses, or is forcibly denied social or legal status, especially basic human rights")
* People who are disappeared (e.g. Covert abduction by government), and/or denied to have ever existed.
The article is a mess because it jumps between talking about these two things. It should be split. There are probably already existing articles for the topics it discusses anyway. —Pengo 03:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: That paragraph on demonization lends itself to POV, to say the least. "An example of this is the demonization of the Serbs during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, which led to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999." is an impressively controversial statement, and other statements regarding Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territories have been added and removed in the past. 18.95.7.168 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, would you like to remove it or rephrase it? If rephrasing is your choice, what would you suggest? What would be ideal is if you could find a citation that covers the idea and draft some prose based on it. What is there now is lacking any citation and so just the thoughts of some random Wikipedia editor. Per WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED we can just remove it and any statement lacking citation in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonization 

message: >making them appear to be sub-human (not humans), and thus indirectly rationalizing any excess or abuse committed against them
How exactly does the second part of the sentence follow from the first, even indirectly? What is the justification that non-humans (animals, plants, spirits, gods, demons, angels, and so on) deserve abuse? This is not rational.
Nonki72 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So, would you like to remove it or rephrase it? If rephrasing is your choice, what would you suggest? What would be ideal is if you could find a citation that covers the idea and draft some prose based on it. What is there now is lacking any citation and so just the thoughts of some random Wikipedia editor. Per WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED we can just remove it and any statement lacking citation in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  non sequitur 

message: I have noticed that the "Ways to become" section is completely unreferenced, likely constitutes original research, and consists mostly of implausible occurences. Should I remove it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, , please remove. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research, accuracy concerns 

message: I recently removed two sub-sections of the Examples section and one additional paragraph as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language; I had already removed another section in December 2018, as noted above. Do not re-add any of the content without reliable references; I'd suggest starting with finding an RS which explicity designates the Erased of post-Soviet Slovenia as nonpersons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'll contact WP:ORN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large part deleted as likely OR