This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page is extremely biased (try looking on wiki at the italian correspondent to check) and I believe it should be heavily modified. I shall try to make my point (hoping this is the right page):
Throughout the article citations are used falsely, for example:
Other things to point out:
Finally in the whole page there's hardly anything not negative to be found about Communion and Liberation and very little is said about its actual history and status: this is a clear indication that neutrality was not even remotely considered while writing.
I'd also like to point out that more English citations should be found, as currently only someone fluent in Italian can evaluate the citations provided, which is not correct for wikipedia page, as far as I'm concerned.
I could go on, but I guess you got the gist of it: this page can currently run for the prize as the most biased in the whole wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edits but the actual article you wrote is very far from Wikipedia quality standard, please follow the Mos for further information. Thanks! Jasmir54 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Jasmir54, as I wrote here what you just reverted to is FAR from wikipedia standard. I am trying to follow the standards of wikipedia as well as possible and I am using proper citations. If you have comments or corrections I am open to discussion, but by erasing everything I've done without proper explanation you're the one being under wiki standards. For instance this citation ( https://www.ilgazzettino.it/nordest/padova/comunione_liberazione_padova_condanna_truffa_dieffe-345586.html ) is old and wrong, as the final judgment was full absolution of everyone, as I showed before... Moreover removing the tags for the page POV arbitrarly is also against wiki standards GioA90 ( talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please follow the reference and reliable citation guides and how to. Use drafts to experiment Jasmir54 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It's exactly what I am doing. Trying to use citations in English, for instance. To use official documents etc. Please, could you tell me how my citations are not reliable? "The fraternity is recognized by the Church" and I cite an official document by the Church, how is this not reliable? Also I am using a number of newspapers as you did, like "la repubblica", why are my pages less reliable than the ones you link? I could go on, but you don't seem to be trying to be interested into developing this page as much as you're interested into keeping as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you're last changes are not constructive, Jasmir54: either you explain why the sources I used are not reliable or we should revert back and then, of course, if you have some propositions for changes/improvements I am all ears. GioA90 ( talk) 21:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I also reported you and you can see you've almost broken the "three times rule"; I won't revert the page back, because I hope you'll either start to talk here or someone will revert the page back. GioA90 ( talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi GioA90, you did at least 2 tentative to replace the whole Communion and Liberation article with your very personal peacock version without reliable references and sources besides official Communion and Organization website ones, nothing can be farest from truth! Please read the wikipedia policies about proper and reliable sources and welcome to Wikipedia. Jasmir54 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jasmir54! You're not answering my questions, nor are you answering the points I made in this talk: if you say "Not reliable" you have to say why, especially after the points I made here. Why would the official bibliography of the founder be not reliable for its history? I made a huge number of changes and explained why the current use of citations is under wikipedia, you can't trow them away just because "you know better". Read the first points I made when I opened this talk, and answer. Why is it ok to say "100 billion budget" when in the article this is NOT present? Why is it okay to write a paragraph about "involvement with banks" when the article you're citing says that trial was dismissed and thus the court decided there wasn't material to go on (and, looking around, I can't find it to be reopened)? Why are you using only Italian sources? Why is it okay to cite a non definitive verdict, when the final one was different? Why are you citing the accusations of "God's lobby" as facts, when the book begins with an "avvertenza" stating that the book is talking about trials in progress and thus "all the people involved are to be deemed innocent until final trial" (thus it contains mostly accusations, but you're using it as main source without looking for the final results of trials). I could go on, but as far as I see you are deeming everything that does not accuse communion and liberation as "peacock" without any second thought. I read all those pages on reliability, and they state that "many workers of Italy think that" and other expressions currently present in the article are a sign of the bad quality of the page as it is. So, again, please if you deem the sources I used unreliable explain yourself, as I used many sources and all of them are of some sort of quality of course, I am not saying what I used is all perfect! But please, don't bash everything, say what's good and what not and at least admit the current quality of the article is extremely low. After all you're on wiki from a month or so (even though you say differently, look at the comments of Matthew), thus as far as I see we're both newbies and you shouldn't trow away everything I've done just saying "you made a peacock version. Your sources are unreliable". Especially after the points I made here about how the article is written. I believe your behaviour has been quite unfair so far. So please, I repeat: either motivate, line by line, article by article why what I did is "bad" or restore the old version, as the current one is not even containing the "accuracy", "POV" and "citations" tags which should definitely be there. Best, GioA90 ( talk) 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, please proper source your references. Thanks you are invited to the Teahouse. Jasmir54 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I asked for help in the Teahouse already. You still are not answering my questions, not even trying... GioA90 ( talk) 06:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Where exactly? Have a nice day. Jasmir54 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Communion_and_Liberation_page , but still you're making an amazing job at ignoring any sort of criticism and bashing everything without taking into consideration what I wrote/the good sources I used (I am sure at least few of them are). Please, try to be collaborative! GioA90 ( talk) 09:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, also for Lzzy, I think the infobox in "my last version" was more than ok...I don't see the point in removing it altogether, just put non-controversial material in it. GioA90 ( talk) 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I advice you user GioA90 that a sockupuppeter investigation is now developing. And by the way you have to independent source your text. Jasmir54 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The admins will quickly find out I am using no sock puppetts. Jasmir54: there are problems with the current citations. why don't you use this investigation time to read them and try to answer them? Please! No answers are stupid, try to write even if you think is not necessary please, so that I can understand where I am wrong (or, maybe, where there really are some problems). GioA90 ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This section is to report final sentences. Please either help this list and/or try avoiding older articles:
If there's more please contribute and compare to what is used in the page. GioA90 ( talk) 05:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page is extremely biased (try looking on wiki at the italian correspondent to check) and I believe it should be heavily modified. I shall try to make my point (hoping this is the right page):
Throughout the article citations are used falsely, for example:
Other things to point out:
Finally in the whole page there's hardly anything not negative to be found about Communion and Liberation and very little is said about its actual history and status: this is a clear indication that neutrality was not even remotely considered while writing.
I'd also like to point out that more English citations should be found, as currently only someone fluent in Italian can evaluate the citations provided, which is not correct for wikipedia page, as far as I'm concerned.
I could go on, but I guess you got the gist of it: this page can currently run for the prize as the most biased in the whole wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edits but the actual article you wrote is very far from Wikipedia quality standard, please follow the Mos for further information. Thanks! Jasmir54 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Jasmir54, as I wrote here what you just reverted to is FAR from wikipedia standard. I am trying to follow the standards of wikipedia as well as possible and I am using proper citations. If you have comments or corrections I am open to discussion, but by erasing everything I've done without proper explanation you're the one being under wiki standards. For instance this citation ( https://www.ilgazzettino.it/nordest/padova/comunione_liberazione_padova_condanna_truffa_dieffe-345586.html ) is old and wrong, as the final judgment was full absolution of everyone, as I showed before... Moreover removing the tags for the page POV arbitrarly is also against wiki standards GioA90 ( talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please follow the reference and reliable citation guides and how to. Use drafts to experiment Jasmir54 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It's exactly what I am doing. Trying to use citations in English, for instance. To use official documents etc. Please, could you tell me how my citations are not reliable? "The fraternity is recognized by the Church" and I cite an official document by the Church, how is this not reliable? Also I am using a number of newspapers as you did, like "la repubblica", why are my pages less reliable than the ones you link? I could go on, but you don't seem to be trying to be interested into developing this page as much as you're interested into keeping as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you're last changes are not constructive, Jasmir54: either you explain why the sources I used are not reliable or we should revert back and then, of course, if you have some propositions for changes/improvements I am all ears. GioA90 ( talk) 21:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I also reported you and you can see you've almost broken the "three times rule"; I won't revert the page back, because I hope you'll either start to talk here or someone will revert the page back. GioA90 ( talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi GioA90, you did at least 2 tentative to replace the whole Communion and Liberation article with your very personal peacock version without reliable references and sources besides official Communion and Organization website ones, nothing can be farest from truth! Please read the wikipedia policies about proper and reliable sources and welcome to Wikipedia. Jasmir54 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jasmir54! You're not answering my questions, nor are you answering the points I made in this talk: if you say "Not reliable" you have to say why, especially after the points I made here. Why would the official bibliography of the founder be not reliable for its history? I made a huge number of changes and explained why the current use of citations is under wikipedia, you can't trow them away just because "you know better". Read the first points I made when I opened this talk, and answer. Why is it ok to say "100 billion budget" when in the article this is NOT present? Why is it okay to write a paragraph about "involvement with banks" when the article you're citing says that trial was dismissed and thus the court decided there wasn't material to go on (and, looking around, I can't find it to be reopened)? Why are you using only Italian sources? Why is it okay to cite a non definitive verdict, when the final one was different? Why are you citing the accusations of "God's lobby" as facts, when the book begins with an "avvertenza" stating that the book is talking about trials in progress and thus "all the people involved are to be deemed innocent until final trial" (thus it contains mostly accusations, but you're using it as main source without looking for the final results of trials). I could go on, but as far as I see you are deeming everything that does not accuse communion and liberation as "peacock" without any second thought. I read all those pages on reliability, and they state that "many workers of Italy think that" and other expressions currently present in the article are a sign of the bad quality of the page as it is. So, again, please if you deem the sources I used unreliable explain yourself, as I used many sources and all of them are of some sort of quality of course, I am not saying what I used is all perfect! But please, don't bash everything, say what's good and what not and at least admit the current quality of the article is extremely low. After all you're on wiki from a month or so (even though you say differently, look at the comments of Matthew), thus as far as I see we're both newbies and you shouldn't trow away everything I've done just saying "you made a peacock version. Your sources are unreliable". Especially after the points I made here about how the article is written. I believe your behaviour has been quite unfair so far. So please, I repeat: either motivate, line by line, article by article why what I did is "bad" or restore the old version, as the current one is not even containing the "accuracy", "POV" and "citations" tags which should definitely be there. Best, GioA90 ( talk) 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, please proper source your references. Thanks you are invited to the Teahouse. Jasmir54 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I asked for help in the Teahouse already. You still are not answering my questions, not even trying... GioA90 ( talk) 06:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Where exactly? Have a nice day. Jasmir54 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Communion_and_Liberation_page , but still you're making an amazing job at ignoring any sort of criticism and bashing everything without taking into consideration what I wrote/the good sources I used (I am sure at least few of them are). Please, try to be collaborative! GioA90 ( talk) 09:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, also for Lzzy, I think the infobox in "my last version" was more than ok...I don't see the point in removing it altogether, just put non-controversial material in it. GioA90 ( talk) 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I advice you user GioA90 that a sockupuppeter investigation is now developing. And by the way you have to independent source your text. Jasmir54 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The admins will quickly find out I am using no sock puppetts. Jasmir54: there are problems with the current citations. why don't you use this investigation time to read them and try to answer them? Please! No answers are stupid, try to write even if you think is not necessary please, so that I can understand where I am wrong (or, maybe, where there really are some problems). GioA90 ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This section is to report final sentences. Please either help this list and/or try avoiding older articles:
If there's more please contribute and compare to what is used in the page. GioA90 ( talk) 05:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |