Talk:Society for Truth and Light

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This organization appears to be the equivalent of Focus on the Family or the Traditional Values Coalition in the United States. This is a typical conservative Christian organization. Some individuals appear to have been vandalizing this page a few times to portray this organization as a hate group. Although (like other conservative groups) this organization disapproves of abortion and homosexuality for a number of reasons, they do not in any way advocate hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.18.173 (talk) 03:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Who is the actual vandalist? It seems its a right wing moral taliban who is located in United States.

OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US

NetRange: 70.16.0.0 - 70.23.255.255 CIDR: 70.16.0.0/13 NetName: VIS-70-16 NetHandle: NET-70-16-0-0-1 Parent: NET-70-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.BELLATLANTIC.NET NameServer: NS2.BELLATLANTIC.NET NameServer: NS2.VERIZON.NET NameServer: NS4.VERIZON.NET Comment: Please send all abuse reports to abuse@verizon.net. Comment: DO NOT send e-mail to DIA.ADMIN@verizon.com as it will not be answered. RegDate: 2004-03-30 Updated: 2006-06-01

OrgAbuseHandle: VISAB-ARIN OrgAbuseName: VIS Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-214-513-6711 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@verizon.net

OrgTechHandle: ZV20-ARIN OrgTechName: Verizon Internet Services OrgTechPhone: 800-243-6994 OrgTechEmail: IPMGMT@verizon.com

  1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-27 19:10
  2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
218.103.128.140 10:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Although I do not agree with the extreme stance of this organization, I think this entry is a bit unbiased - at least the organization should not be categorized as a hate group...

Is anyone going to fix this article?Siurekrek 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a group advertisement on newspapers for 23 consecutive days in front page, middle page; spent roughly a million against a Discrimination Based on Sexual Perference. Enlisted distorted research report, doctored research, changed conclusion of research report, added content just to wound public image of LGBT. It is hard to argue otherwise, how about an opportunitistic profiting from GLBT bashing group?
They also promote the concept of 'Reverse Discrimination', i.e. Anyone has the right to discriminate against LGBT. The advocate of right-to-discriminate group, shouldn't we call it a hate group?

Needs POV work[edit]

The article needs work to make it NPOV. This might be achievable, for example, by finding sources that identify this group as a "hate group" and attributing this label to the sources. TableManners 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language references[edit]

I moved the following recent contributions here:

  • [http://www.pcdiscuss.com/forum/archiver/tid-158001.html reference1]
  • [http://fklmstss.mysch.net/~ceadmin/center2-11.htm reference2]
  • [http://ymchow74.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=586521 reference3]
  • [http://swtsang.mocasting.com/p/117133 reference4]
  • [http://lightnesssnow.hkbloggers.org/?p=440 reference5] *<nowiki>[http://swtsang.mocasting.com/p/117133 reference6]

Because they are written in Chinese, requires specialist knowledge. Also, many of them appear to be blog entries of some sort. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs sources[edit]

This article needs sources badly; calling something a "hate group" without a single source is egregious. --Haemo 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Admin User:Haemo[edit]

This article has been vandalised by an admin who (very likely) know nothing about what's happening in Hong Kong and abused its power to force its view on others.--203.218.218.253 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "vandalized" anything. I don't know boo about Hong Kong, but I know a lot about how we're supposed to reference things. This page is not appropriately referenced, and concerns over neutrality have not been addressed. The only reason I have not restored the neutrality tag is because I'm a good boy who follows the three revert rule even when others don't. --Haemo 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People don't need to know anything about Hong Kong to see that this article is POV and unsourced. Stuff are removed and changed not because they did not happen but because the way they are being presented is non-neutral. And I think the ones who are forcing his/her views on others are those who put in (and revert back) the weasel words like "purported to be", "so-called", and "in its usual bullish manner", not a good-will admin. Feathered serpent 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to re-add the {{POV}} template since you agree. --Haemo 03:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering sources[edit]

I'm trying to get some good reliable sources for this article — here's a short list:

It looks like there's some useful stuff in these. --Haemo 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should notice one very very major point here - Hong Kong is part of China, not a British Crown Colony anymore, and 95% of its population are ethical Chinese[1] who use Chinese/Cantonese as their daily/spoken language[2]. Although this is an English article, I cannot emphasis more that it is 101% POV to exclude Chinese/include English only source as the sole English newspapers quoted are read by local elitists only (only 33% of Hong Kong population are using English as a second language[3]), and the above sources are actually secondary sources from local Chinese papers. English only sources cannot act as a source for information which reflect any grassroot sentiments in the territory.
If you are talking about sources reference, Chinese is always the first choice for Hong Kong topics.--219.77.106.43 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't read Chinese, so I can't find Chinese sources. Furthermore, since this is en.Wikipedia, we're supposed to try and use English language sources whenever possible. In addition, you seem to misunderstand our citation guidelines — we're supposed to use secondary sources. Primary sources are only supposed to be used for direct verification of particular statements, not for general opinions about a topic. For instance, it's okay to quote John F Kennedy explaining his position on the Vietnam War; however, it's not correct to cite John F Kennedy explaining his position on the Vietnam war for a general statement about US policy under Kennedy in Vietnam. --Haemo 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how citing English sources, as long as they are neutral, makes the article POV. Feathered serpent 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see these as an English/White Supremacy racist view where you all are implying English, secondary reference are superior than Chinese, primary sources--219.77.106.43 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. It is not "racist" to follow our citation guidelines. Like it or not, this is the English Wikipedia, and while Chinese-language sources are acceptable, they should only be used in the absence of English sources of comparable scope and quality. --Haemo 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that both the Chinese and English sources are secondary sources, being news reports and such. Feathered serpent 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag marked in article[edit]

Due to the current POV situation of this article, I have tagged POV in the article. If the situation doesn't improve I may consider an AfD. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really fit criteria for AfD - the group is definitely notable. But it does need to be edited to read less like an attack page. We need to work on verifying the claims and deleting claims that can't be backed up by reliable sources. We also need to make sure that opinions are not presented as statements of fact - if possible we should attribute in the content itself who it was that said this or that. For example, who exactly called the group a "hate group"? I'm pretty sure the group itself wouldn't call itself a hate group, so that shouldn't be presented as if it was a fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently someone is trying to remove the POV tag as soon as it is added. Right now we don't need an AfD, but probability some kind of page protection. Feathered serpent 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may consider half-protection (well it's supposed to be enough to keep anon. IPs away from reverting our anti-POV edits). What do you guys think? --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Post the request. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request posted. Feathered serpent 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request is declined. I guess we all have to watchlist this page closely and revert as needed. Feathered serpent 06:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes after punctuations[edit]

When adding references, please note that footnotes should go after punctuations. So they should look like this:

They also stated this.[1]

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is British (before) style vs American style (after). As long as we are consistent we are fine.Feathered serpent 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's "Chicago style" versus scientific journal style. It doesn't really matter, but the suggested "after" is better IMO; see WP:FOOTNOTES for more. --Haemo 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ example source

3 years later and article still has many problems , neutrality and incorrect format of non-english references[edit]

I have fixed a bunch of stuff but more needs to be done....

Use of the word "The Establishment" is non-specific and generally unencylopedic, at least in this context and may be seen as derogatory as it is often used in slang to indicate an out of date, bureaucratic and stuffy authority.
  • Labeling the "Broadcasting Authority" as "The Authority" may be confusing and leading due to the multiple implications of the word "authority". Further, the group is generally referred to by Hong Kong media as "BA" after initial full name introduction.
  • Labeling and lumping together opposing group such as "liberal" and categorizing opposition together as "Gay rights, sex workers rights and liberal Christian" with no supporting references creates bias assertions.
  • creating emotive and leading sentences and conclusions such as "the authority refused to back down" is non impartial in tone and creates a "good guys v bad guys" scenario and is POV.--DCX (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find some sources but not speaking Chinese, it is kinda rough. - Schrandit (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Society_for_Truth_and_Light&oldid=1210389231"