Difference between revisions of "Talk:Panic of 2006"

Revision as of 15:39, 15 March 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)