User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
  • Archive index - Index of all archive entries.
  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from January 2005 through December 2007.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from January 2008 through May 2008.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from June 2008 through December 2008.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from January 2009 through October 2009.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from November 2009 through August 2010.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from September 2010 through April 2011.
  • Archive #7 - Entries archived from May 2011 through December 2011.
  • Archive #8 - Entries archived from January 2012 through March 2013.
  • Archive #9 - Entries archived from April 2013 through January 2015.
  • Archive #10 - Entries archived from February 2015 through 30 days ago.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions. You are being contacted to help form a consensus based on your earlier participation at a related thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Proposed moves for some single-season stat pages. Thanks in advance. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


I do not understand your actions on the Chicago Blackhawks article and its talk page. It is my understanding that any editor may place a npov tag when a discussion has reached a dead end. I was not the only complainant, I entered a discussion involving an anonymous editor who unfortunately chose to pursue an edit war. However I agree with the basis of the discussion, three editors of article are not allowing for any POV other than their own. It is also my understanding that when a pov tag is placed, a new section on the talk page is appropriate in order to start to discussion again, hopefully with new participants.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And any user can remove the tag when they don't feel it is appropriate. A new section on a discussion that was dead for some time is appropriate. But that discussion was literally ongoing. So starting a new section is often seen as trying to hide the older comments from new participants. I think you need to focus on discussing the situation, and refrain from what appears to be pointy edits. As someone not involved in that discussion the section you are complaining about does appear to be neutral is it mentions opinions from both sides of the issue. If you think it can be even more neutral while not coatracking in the more general topic (which is already linked to in the section) then I suggest continuing to discuss. But as I read that discussion it appeared to me that what you want is to remove the neutrality and to push the section to only really discussing one side of the controversy which would then actually be NPOV. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The point I have been trying to make is that giving equal weight to both sides of an issue when one side is represented by scholars in peer-reviewed sources, while the other side is represented only by individual opinions in newspapers, is not neutral because of undue weight. Two of the three participants in the discussion reject the idea that peer-reviewed scholarship exists on the issue, which to me indicates the need to expand the discussion. The NPOV tag was the beginning of the process of doing so. The next step is a posting to the NPOV notice board.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No the topic is the controversy, controversy does not rely only on scholarly research. The opinions on both sides of a controversy are of equal weight when trying to remain neutral. You are confusing quality of sources with weight of different parts of the subject. They are very different things. Being neutral means you don't give one side of the issue more coverage than the other when they are both major viewpoints. Discounting newspapers just because they are newspapers is the very definition of being POV. Having just read the controversies article that you mention as being primarily written by you I can see where the others in the discussion are coming from, that article is very heavily POV, there is almost no coverage at all of the other side of the controversy. You can't have a controversy with only one side or it wouldn't be a controversy. That article needs a heavy rewrite. And I should note they don't reject the idea that there is scholarly research on the topic, but that you can't peer-review opinions like you can with hard facts. -DJSasso (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)