Talk:Astronomical Society of New South Wales

New article replaces Old

An old, stub version on this topic was deleted in 2009. After discussion with the admin who deleted it (Juliancolton), we agreed that there no reason to prevent me from moving the new version of this article to mainspace. "The article was deleted following an AfD discussion, but your version seems much improved... Let me know if you need any help, and nice work on that new article." That discussion is at User_talk:Juliancolton#Astronomical_Society_of_New_South_Wales.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of interest

I have been a member of the Astronomical Society of New South Wales since the mid-1990s, although I have never been an officer or employee, and my contributions are my own. I strive to make improving Wikipedia my highest priority, and I have attempted to keep this article neutral. If someone feels that I have not, please make the changes in good faith. I have removed this page from my watchlist and only plan on visiting from time to time to see how it evolves as people find more citations. I leave this page here for the betterment of WP. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Astronomical Society of New South Wales

The DYK project (nominate) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ASNSW : Article Avoids NPOV. Possibly Advertising Itself?

Hello Editors. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things in the article Astronomical Society of New South Wales, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Self Promotional Material Issues

This whole article is written by just two editors. Worryingly, most of the links are taken from the organisation itself and not from cited from actual independent sources. I have severely edited those clearly avoiding NPOV, with text that seems more promotional of the ASNSW rather than objective. (See WP:BFAQ Specifically, those editing from this article's organisation should also note WP:BFAQ#LINK, which says;

"If your organization's article does not contain a link to your official website, you are welcome to add one. However, you should avoid adding other External links to your or your organization's website."

(After my previous severe edits, I cut this from twelve to six blantent self-references. )

This article still needs much more culling, especially the highly dubious section of "Notable members' achievements", which highlights these individual's works but not the needed connection to the ASNSW other than presenting some 'award'. I.e. Their observations and discoveries were clearly not under programs or financed by the ASNSW. The text seemingly takes credit for this work, when it is clearly not true. This whole section should be deleted, where Wikipedia already has pages written for these individuals.

This article clearly violates WP:BFAQ#ADVERT, WP:BFAQ#WHY & WP:BFAQ#RULES

Either fix the self-promotion or the offending text will rightful be removed by neutral editors. (See WP:BFAQ#DELETE) Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

While a bit heavy handed, I see no major issue with these edits. It does appear that some valid sources have been removed (such as sources for the Star party) and those sources should be restored. There are several secondary ones. Also, mentioning that the organization does serve visitors and guests is not promotional, if written neutrally. Scr★pIron^IV 14:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice. Whilst mentioning "visitors and guests is not promotional" is quite true, it needs a reference. I'll take a closer look, though after some searching, I can find no reliable source that can back this statement up. When verifying, it also needs to be from a third party source not the organisation as the primary source. I.e. WP:BFAQ#RULES says; "...for most content, your company website does not count as a source." Also, some of the citations don't seem to relate directly to some statements IMO. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The section on "Members' achievements" does not make any claim that these achievements were financed by the organization; it simply reports notable achievements by members.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That was not actually the point. The question is were they notable because they were specifically ASNSW members or were their efforts separately? Mentioning people names, in the instance here, could also be construed to advantageous to the ASNSW for self promotion. Reading the named people to the Wikipedia articles finds no real association other than reward of a medal to Robert Evans - with much of the text in this article already duplicated. Worse, you mention "most prestigious honour" three times, and it appears again in the Robert Evans page. Again, the other three people mentioned, find their own WP pages not even mentioning the ASNSW at all! Plainly this shows direct evidence of no real NPOV at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with both Arianewiki1's edits and ScrapIronIV's comments. WP:NPOV is/was not maintained, with plenty of weasel words. Just don't get carried away; after removing blatant material, consider rewording the intention of the remaining less-blatant offenses, if possible/acceptable.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Assuming WP:GF, the NPOV specific examples do include;

"making it one of the oldest and largest such clubs in the country. Its members have a record of significant research accomplishments and public outreach activities." (According to whom?)

"...internationally famous astronomer Bart Bok..."

"This gave the club a sense of purpose and importance, and the club grew rapidly to become a leading amateur astronomy organisation." (According to whom?)

"It aims to "keep members in touch with what is happening in the world of Astronomy, as well as providing readers with a number of personal accounts of observing sessions and Astronomical discoveries." (It is also self referenced, I.e To "About the ASNSW".[1] Worst the reference it refers finds only members can access its publication.)

Many more. (some still not removed)

Probably worst in all these edit...

"..., which was described by Forbes magazine as "a weekend of star watching beneath one of the world's darkest skies".

This Forbes magazine source [2] IS independent but also NOT independent [3], with a degree of cheery picking from favourable source is clearly not neutral, and is actually aims to self-promoting. Worst the statement is debatable, and possibly suggests other sites are not so good. (According to the site, it is not free to attend here [4], arguably stated for commercial advantage and possibly against rival events.

As for Gronk Oz saying; "It is not clear which aspect of WP:BFAQ you are concerned about here..." [5], I have explained that precisely in the next above section.

Nearly all the deleted text by Gronk Oz WP:BFAQ explicitly says; "If your organization's article does not contain a link to your official website, you are welcome to add one. However, you should avoid adding other External links to your or your organization's website." Twelve links to support the text are from the organisation in unacceptable. Bias, whether intended or unintended, is still not encyclopedic, which by someone who is known to be associated with a group, cannot likely be neutral or objective. The first three quotes I've presented above show this statement is almost certainly true, and is equally confirmed by the editor's statement: "It is not clear which aspect of WP:BFAQ you are concerned about here..." Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This conversation will be more constructive if we deal with specifics, rather than generalizations. Let's start with what @Arianewiki1: calls "probably worst in all these edit": the quote from Forbes magazine which describes the South Pacific Star Party as "a weekend of star watching beneath one of the world's darkest skies". Arianewiki1 claims this is "not independent" because it is also quoted on the Society's web site. That is irrelevant. It is a direct quote from an article where Rebecca Ruiz, a journalist at Forbes magazine who has no connection with the society, chose this as one of the "world's best places to see the stars". Yes, it is a favourable quote. That article says good things about all of the sites reviewed: that is why they were chosen as the world's best. NPOV does not mean omitting relevant independent material just because that material itself expresses an opinion. At the most extreme, if you are concerned that this is a POV statement, then I suggest it should be handled according to the guidleline at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. Surely the inclusion of independent, relevant material, with appropriate reference, is what should form the basis of an article. If you are concerned that this was somehow "cheery picking" then by all means add alternative views with their references.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Sidonio (Lack of Relevant Citation)

A person named Michael Sidonio is mentioned under "Notable members' achievements", but seemingly none of the given sources reports to any association with ASNSW. This was added here. [6] In a Google search I could find no definitive reference that actually links this person to this society. I.e. Fails WP:SELFPUB It also clearly fails under WP:V/WP:VERIFY alone, where it states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed..." Unless a reliable independent source and citation can be found, this paragraph should probably rightfully be deleted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, referencing WP:WTAF - the header specifies notable members, notability is validated through article creation. Scr★pIron^IV 22:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)