Talk:Order of the Invisible Hand/Archive

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Great job, Knoot, but there is one little problem with this article: It reeks of pro-Order POV. This is particularly evident in the "Writings" section. I won't start editing anything right now, because it's your article and I don't have the time for it anyway. However, I will put up a NPOV notice. -- Constantinopolis 18:34, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)

P.S. A good way to achieve NPOV would be through the addition of anti-Order opinions. -- Constantinopolis 18:36, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)


  • I wonder if you know about the Template:POV check feature. It's also a call for POV repairs, but it's not quite as strident as Template:NPOV. At first glance, I'd say this article calls more for a POV check than a full NPOV dispute. → Fris Θtalk 20:31, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Fine, but if you have objections then I'm asking you to at least come with ideas to edit it instead of just giving it a [THOUGHTCRIME] NPOV notice and leaving. I'll be (albeit grudgingly) changing it to a Template:POV check provided you actually propose a change.

Thing is, this article is a factual piece which is about what the organisation *is*, not an opinion piece and the writings are clearly marked as examples of what they think. (I'll mark it a little more clearly) If you have an idea for changing it I'd like to hear it though, but bear that in mind. The point is not to give politicised judgements. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 22:32, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Oh, so it's fair practice to include lengthy quotes from an organization's writings and statements in that organization's wiki article? Great! I'll go add huge essays on the evils of capitalism to the CACE article right away - after all, they're examples of what the CACE thinks, aren't they?

I think our choice is quite simple here: Either you remove the "writings" section or I add similar sections to articles about organizations on the opposite side. Let's see how much you'd like to see that happening. -- Constantinopolis 13:11, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Be bold. Add some opposing material. ---Goobergunch|? 21:27, 18 Nov 2004 (GMT) Or you know what? Don't make threats. That's an even better idea. --Goobergunch|? 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (GMT)
I'm only threatening to do the same thing Knoot did, nothing more. I don't see how that's "bad" in any way - after all, the rules must be the same for all users. -- Constantinopolis 12:41, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

P.S. And since we now have a full NPOV dispute, I've put the old notice back up. -- Constantinopolis 13:23, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)


You know, the article's got a lot of the structure of the wiki's article on Catholicism, so if you try to keep it as objective as possible and mirroring that in similar fashion, I think we'd be best off. --Galdago


Thank you for adding quotation marks, Knoot, but that cosmetic modification doesn't change anything. My argument remains the same: If it's okay to post "examples of the Order's views" on the Order's wiki article, then it's equally okay to post "examples of the CACE's views" on the CACE article, "examples of Constantinopolis' views" on my nation's article, and so on. Is that what you want?

I suggest you should simply create an "Order of the Invisible Hand" section on your website (if you don't have one already), put all your POV texts there, and then post an external link in this article towards it. That way everyone goes home happy, and the wiki remains NPOV. -- Constantinopolis 21:09, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I should note that putting "examples of opposing views" on this page would also be acceptable. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 18 Nov 2004 (GMT)

General note: I dislike it when people go on massive idealogical wars throughout the wiki. Don't disrupt the wiki to prove a point. --Goobergunch|? 21:58, 18 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Notice that I haven't disrupted the wiki in this dispute. And I'm hoping that I won't have to. I'm keeping that option as a last result in case all else fails. I'm sure you can see my point here: If one user is allowed to add a certain type of content to a certain article, there's no reason why other users shouldn't be able to add the same type of content to their own articles.

And notice that I've already proposed a solution: Knoot should move the Writings section to his website, and place a link to it in this article. -- Constantinopolis 12:41, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Let me be very clear: taking your RL ideological war to the Wiki is NOT an option. It is not a "last resort". You *are*, however being disruprive. Now, I do not take kindly to being threatened nor will I remove perfectly valid content just because you insist on plowing systematically through all of my articles on some strange quest for of 'revenge' or to make some ideological point. It would also help if you would actually think in terms of solutions for wiki problems. You and some of your buddies are constantly defining everything in terms of "this side" "the other side" "dispute" etc as if the Wiki is an ideological background. I am not spending my time here to fight these increasingly pointless NPOV disputes just because the Wiki rules allow you to freely vent your hatred of capitalism/capitalists/me personally. An open-source system does not work if the participants do not have the intention to work together to solve problems and I'd hate for this Wiki not to work.

I have tried to accomodate your concerns, now I'd suggest that you come with some non-deletionist suggestions or just leave my pages be when there is nothing actually wrong with them. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 12:55, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but how have I "threatened" you? If you believe your Writings section to be appropriate, then you certainly wouldn't consider it a "threat" if similar sections were to be included in other articles, would you? And if anyone is trying to make the wiki an ideological background, then that is most certainly you, not me. After all, it is you, not me, who wish to include ideological propaganda on a wiki article. My "venting of hatred", if it exists at all, is restricted to talk pages. Yours, on the other hand, spills over into articles.
As for non-deletionist suggestions, I think I already made one: If a Writings section is appropriate for this article, then a similar Writings section is appropriate for any article. This is not a threat, it is a logical conclusion. -- Constantinopolis 18:01, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I don't think it's up to any single user to determine that articles don't belong in the wiki. I'm getting tired of people removing stuff that doesn't agree with their viewpoints rather than attempting to balance POV by carefully adding material. By the standards Constantinopolis seems to be suggesting, the wiki would be better off as a series of stubs with a list of offsite links. That's not what I'm looking for here. I don't expect everything to be perfectly NPOV, as roleplaying is subjective. I'd rather read some slanted POV stuff and make up my own mind, than have the CACE police remove everything that offends them. → Fris Θtalk 12:58, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Fine by me. But if Knoot is free to add slanted POV stuff, then so is everybody else. On the other hand, if everybody else is not free to add slanted POV stuff, then neither is Knoot. That is the only point I am trying to make here. -- Constantinopolis 18:01, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Knoot, if this is an expository article, sample writings from the Order seriously shouldn't be included, as no one tends to put the whole Bible in articles about Christianity in any encyclopedia you find, but you can probably safely leave the section about "what the Order belives." You should link out to a database of Order writings on the bottom if you'd like. --Galdago