Talk:Hogsweat-Scandavian War

"I (Scandavian States) [...]"

I think this says all. A first person account, and needs to be adjusted as is appropriate in time. Rechze • (talk) 09:09, 20 Jan 2005 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the ego to talk about myself in the third person. Furthermore, no point of view but first felt right when I wrote that particular section, which I viewed as rather important to put in given some of the comments that have directed at me about the war. Also, while I did indentify myself, it would have been silly and somewhat misleading not to have done so, I think you will find that if you actually speak to Hogsweat he will vouche for its neutrality and honesty. That he hasn't done so is all that really needs to be said, your minor nit notwithstanding. - SS 09:26 Jan 20, 2005 (EST)

It is not really bad that it has been written in first person, any information is good. It just needs to be put in third person by others now. Rechze • (talk) 02:36, 21 Jan 2005 (GMT)

• shrugs* You say so, but I think anybody is going to be hard-pressed to convert that section into third person.

(Scandavian States 02:42, 21 Jan 2005 (GMT))

We could always use the information given there, and put some of it in quotes. Rechze • (talk)

Perhaps, but then again quotes imply citation from an outside source. I don't know about you, but I've never seen somebody's thought put into quotes before. (Scandavian States 03:09, 21 Jan 2005 (GMT))

I just removed the OOC Reasoning section, it doesn't really need to be there. I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the NPOV tag. (Scandavian States 01:11, 23 Jan 2005 (GMT))

I have put back the original information and rendered it from a third person perspective, because it is useful information, and was dominantly only against NPOV because it was directly written in first person from the perspective of yourself (Scandavian States), however neutral it was/is in itself.

Furthermore the move of the imeline from the Haven page was probably justified considering that the description of it on that page probably should just be a small summary of the war, and not contain information that the main article does not. Rechze • (talk) 03:38, 23 Jan 2005 (GMT)