Difference between revisions of "Talk:Order of the Invisible Hand/Archive"

Revision as of 18:01, 18 November 2004

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)

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)