This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 01:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
CatCafe has twice reverted me regarding the spelling of "World Health Organization". My first edit had the edit summary "Correct name as used in source; also ( MOS:ARTCON) – see https://www.who.int". CatCafe reverted me with "Undid revision. yes maybe, but this is a quote accurate of what he penned." I restored the correct spelling, saying "this is an accurate representation of the source, which I had verified before saving. If you can supply a source which quotes him with the other spelling, please add it." CatCafe did not supply the requested source, but instead again reverted me, merely saying "Undid revision. No you are incorrect, take it to talk." So here we are.
The correct spelling is indisputably "World Health Organization", as evidenced by the usage on the organization's official site, the URL of which I provided in my original edit summary. Wikipedia's policy is to " use the subject's own spelling", unless it's spelled otherwise in a quote. This is in a quote, and I went to the source and checked before my first edit, verifying that the correct spelling was used. CatCafe says the misspelling is in "a quote accurate of what he penned", but when asked for a source, simply says "you are incorrect". What evidence is there that Johns used the incorrect spelling? None has been presented. Without any evidence, we may assume that he followed the same policy that Wikipedia does – to use the actual name of the organization rather than imposing his own spelling preference. Note that the source which uses the "Organization" spelling in the quote is the British newspaper The Guardian; it is extremely unlikely that a British newspaper would alter a quote to change "Organisation" to "Organization".
So, do we abide by Wikipedia policies and use common sense, or just accept CatCafe's unfounded assertion that the misspelling is "an accurate representation"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 01:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
CatCafe has twice reverted me regarding the spelling of "World Health Organization". My first edit had the edit summary "Correct name as used in source; also ( MOS:ARTCON) – see https://www.who.int". CatCafe reverted me with "Undid revision. yes maybe, but this is a quote accurate of what he penned." I restored the correct spelling, saying "this is an accurate representation of the source, which I had verified before saving. If you can supply a source which quotes him with the other spelling, please add it." CatCafe did not supply the requested source, but instead again reverted me, merely saying "Undid revision. No you are incorrect, take it to talk." So here we are.
The correct spelling is indisputably "World Health Organization", as evidenced by the usage on the organization's official site, the URL of which I provided in my original edit summary. Wikipedia's policy is to " use the subject's own spelling", unless it's spelled otherwise in a quote. This is in a quote, and I went to the source and checked before my first edit, verifying that the correct spelling was used. CatCafe says the misspelling is in "a quote accurate of what he penned", but when asked for a source, simply says "you are incorrect". What evidence is there that Johns used the incorrect spelling? None has been presented. Without any evidence, we may assume that he followed the same policy that Wikipedia does – to use the actual name of the organization rather than imposing his own spelling preference. Note that the source which uses the "Organization" spelling in the quote is the British newspaper The Guardian; it is extremely unlikely that a British newspaper would alter a quote to change "Organisation" to "Organization".
So, do we abide by Wikipedia policies and use common sense, or just accept CatCafe's unfounded assertion that the misspelling is "an accurate representation"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)