Talk:Panic of 2006

"Panic"

I admittedly picked "Panic" in part because I didn't expect the recession to have as long lasting an effect as it had. I also picked "Panic" because I liked the name and considered it as part of a series of "panics" that existed in the United States. If you look at the Wiki on the Panic of 1819, it'll point you to other "Panics" that were also depressions. I also didn't want to be presumptuous and call it a depression. Sarzonia 02:25, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

NPOV

Would you mind explaining exactly what the NPOV problem was Pacitalia? Sarzonia

The one major problem is your diction. For example, when Sigurimasso talked about Sarzo resigning because his continual stranglehold on the Sarzonian presidency was undemocratic, it wasn't a demand, it was a suggestion. Albeit an untimely one. Still, demand makes the reader assume Sigurimasso was flying off the handle, spit in every direction, busy hands etc. Just have a look at it, as I will, and decide what words could be neutralised a bit more, then we can remove the notice. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 23:43, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm not willing to change that from "demand" to "suggestion." Frankly, the burden of proof is on you to prove it's not a demand since you're the one "suggesting" Sarzo resign. --Sarzonia 14:35, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Since it's Pacitalia's character, I would say that the burdern of proof rests with you to show that his character was in fact doing something that he didnt want it to. In any case, I'm not really sure if "panic" is a very good word. This situation looks far more like a depression than a 'panic' to me. A 'panic' implies a swift event that leaves little in the way of lasting damage, whereas this event has led to hyperinflation, stock market crashes, changing legislation, changing international relations, etc. etc. Praetonia 22:04, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

*scratches head* I am unsure where the NPOV dispute is coming from. There's no substantive difference between "suggestion" and "demand", this is just a semantics game that serves no real purpose. Besides which, I rather think it's inappropriate for two parties who are as non-neutral as Praetonia and Pacitalia to be throwing the NPOV flag.--Scandavian States 02:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

On the NPOV thing, the whole point of Wikipedia is peer review. Saying that it's fine for an involved party to write an article but it's wrong for another involved party to critique that article is frankly absurd. if you think that peer review shouldn't be allowed, then frankly I don't see why you're here. This is a silly argument, so can we please just drop it. Praetonia 19:39, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Well, as Pacitalia is an involved party in this, I'll step in. Two suggestions would be:

• Make a list of the objectionable phrases
• Create, here, a suggested neutral rewrite.

This doesn't honestly seem to be that major, though. Perhaps a fairly swift resolution could be aimed for. Gruen2alk 04:24, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

You're right, Gruen, it's not major. The only problem I would have with this article is the choice of words used. I do think it's rather inappropriate, however, for SS to be criticising my reaction to the article, when (a) it's my job to look for these things and call authors on them - aka you think I'm just singling out Sarz for the heck of it, and (b) many of SS' articles have been tagged for NPOV problems in the past, so it's not really his call to tell any of us whether or not we're justified in throwing the proverbial red flag. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 22:32, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Frankly, we're going to end up at an impasse on this issue because I disagree with Pacitalia's assessment of the word choice. I also question why Pacitalia is taking this from an administrative or sysop POV when it's his character. The potential for a conflict of interest is pretty clear in my mind. And, I find it rather interesting that you're objecting because it's SS who's questioning your reaction to the article because 1) I'm aware your history with him isn't exactly pleasant and 2) he's disagreeing with your assessment of the article. But enough of me posting my assessment of the personality clashes involved. The issue is the article itself. I suspect this is going to remain a NPOV dispute because there won't be a consensus. Sarzonia 06:06, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Er, excuse me? Many? I had one that I can recall, and that was over the tense that I used, which I immediately corrected after I was informed of what the problem was. All my other articles have been tech related, hardly fodder for NPOV issues. And I don't think it's inappropriate for me to be pointing out that you, Pacitalia, are not an unbiased person in this issue and that as such there is a conflict of interest. It's the unvarnished truth. Sarzonia, I would suggest seeking arbitration on this if Pacitalia is unwilling to resolve the issue; it would resolve it one way or the other.--Scandavian States 16:16, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Whoa, I don't recall saying I didn't want to see consensus or resolution of the issue. Let's not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I may not like you, but if you have a valid point I'd be agreeing with you. And, don't forget, I'm not the one ignoring your TGs. :) So, don't even go there, SS. Just drop it and stay out of here if you can't post anything other than personal attacks on my abilities as a sysop or bureaucrat. Now let's please try and solve the issue, and quit squabbling over the fact that we dislike each other OOCly. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:00, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Where was the personal attack? I was pointing out the obvious. If you're insulted by this, then perhaps you need to re-examine your actions that led up to this. Now, if you want a suggestion for a solution from me, it's this: leave off. The whole point of this article, or any wiki article, is to report the facts of the events in the RP. It doesn't matter if it's your character he's reporting on, it's his thread he's reporting on and you have no more right here to "demand" or "suggest" a change from Sarzonia than you do in one of his threads. It is absolutely impossible to avoid bias one way or the other and by tagging this thread NPOV you are asking him to do the impossible. Unreasonable, at best.--Scandavian States 19:52, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

"Personal" attacks? If Praetonia were the bureaucrat and he made a ruling I disagreed with in a dispute about what his characters did, I'd be doing the same thing I'm doing now. Whether you agree with me or not, that's the truth. Then again, you seem pretty willing to suggest that I'm lying. That's something I consider at least as insulting as you consider my questioning what I perceive to be a conflict of interest. User:Sarzonia 19:08, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Stop. Now.

Okay, here's the deal. We all have equal prerogative to edit this article, not just Sarzonia. In fact, anybody can edit this article if they want to, as long as they're adding neutral, relative information. Suggesting otherwise completely undermines the policy of NSwiki. Perhaps you, SS, need to read the community rules and suggestions more carefully. And perhaps I need to repeat to you that the whole point of multiple editors is to achieve the balance necessary to avoid NPOV issues. It certainly matters if its my character and he's reporting it falsely, just as if I was writing an article and portrayed his character falsely. If that was my opinion, I would say "what Pacitalians considered", such as Sarzonia has rightly done in the 'demand' part at the end of the article. Again, saying I don't have the right to edit other people's articles completely undermines the point of the Wiki, and if you don't like it, I kindly suggest you take your ideas elsewhere, since that's not what the Wiki is about, and it is not what the Wiki will ever be about.

The fact remains that I would rather see a consensus sooner than later. Delaying that is not going to help that be achieved in any way, so we need to stop arguing over this. It is pointless. The article has already seen a marked improvement, and basically right now, the NPOV problems are based on the proportion in the article. The article is relatively short right now, but it will be expanded because the RP is not over yet. When it does end, that will help a lot. So will fixing the little errors that are already present. Sarzonia has fixed one of them already, probably the biggest one in it, which is a good step. I am confident we can find a consensus. However, suggesting things that go against the grain of the policy of this site will not help at all, so I am telling you now - do not reply again in here unless you are contributing positively and neutrally to this topic.

This can be fixed. It does not need to be blown out of proportion. And I can tell you now we're almost to the point where it is. So, let's stop wasting each other's time bickering, and try this again. I hate to do this, but I'm afraid anybody who chooses to continue arguing over this, instead of working to resolve the issue, will have to face consequences. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 00:33, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Hold it.

You can defend your point but I can't? Frankly, any judge who is heavily involved in a case can and should recuse himself from said case because he or she would want to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's why I've argued the possibility of a conflict of interest. In my estimation, you didn't try to resolve the problem(s) you had without resorting to the NPOV. You chose that first without sending me a telegram saying "look, here are my concerns about the Wiki. Here are some suggestions for resolving them without resorting to tagging this with a NPOV."

If I'm going to have "consequences" as a result of this, so be it. Sarzonia 22:03, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

NPOV fixup

Okay, how does this look now? I modified about ten sentences in the thing and it looks a lot better now, IMO. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 00:24, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

JJ&J was not a Guffingfordian company

Instead, is was a consortium of investors, (central) banks and real estate developers of the Imperial Armies region. I was given fiat for this undertaking by several IA nations, therefore JJ&J's does not qualify as soley Guffingfordian.

PS: JJ&J stands for Jay Gould, James Fisk & John Law, the three CEOs. The Mystery Man 09:07, 1 May 2006 (GMT)