This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
The Promotion section's description of what happened with Goldberg is both too detailed and fails NPOV. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
How does it fail NPOV? It gives both sides, it's supported completely by reliable sources. Do you have any specifics to offer for what you see as POV? -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 05:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It's verifiable, but overblown in proportion to the topic (Also, rather unprofessional IMO). In 10 years will a viral news item still be worth including in an encyclopedia??
Mere verifiability does not mandate inclusion, and isolated events should not be given undue coverage per
WP:PROPORTION and
WP:WEIGHT. NPOV means some info of lesser importance should be pared down to create a well structured, fairly weighted article. It is a shame that so many Wikipedia articles are generated almost entirely from daily news and
churnalism sources that give zero consideration to the lasting significance of their articles.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
The Promotion section's description of what happened with Goldberg is both too detailed and fails NPOV. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
How does it fail NPOV? It gives both sides, it's supported completely by reliable sources. Do you have any specifics to offer for what you see as POV? -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 05:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It's verifiable, but overblown in proportion to the topic (Also, rather unprofessional IMO). In 10 years will a viral news item still be worth including in an encyclopedia??
Mere verifiability does not mandate inclusion, and isolated events should not be given undue coverage per
WP:PROPORTION and
WP:WEIGHT. NPOV means some info of lesser importance should be pared down to create a well structured, fairly weighted article. It is a shame that so many Wikipedia articles are generated almost entirely from daily news and
churnalism sources that give zero consideration to the lasting significance of their articles.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply