Content deleted Content added
→NPOV: Editorials |
→NPOV: Reply |
||
Line 65:
{{outdent}} We can rephrase the captions to better match the body text, if necessary. We are talking about opinions here. So it is perfectly fine to use opinion or commentary articles. This is like the Reception section for an article about a movie. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:It is fine to use opinion articles ''as a source of opinions'', which means to attribute the opinion to its holder and present it as such. But we cannot use opinion articles and present what they say as ''fact'', "in Wikipedia's voice" so to speak. So, we can certainly use an opinion article, and present it as "John Doe, in the ''Example Times'', stated that Foo is A and Bar is B, because C and D", and that's fine to source from an editorial, because we make it clear that it's Doe's opinion. But we cannot use that to source "Foo is A and Bar is B, because C and D". [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::I just want to say that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_childlessness&oldid=1143689941 this] was what we originally had to work with when we slowly started picking away at this. So, before chastising us too much, please take a look at where it's come from.
::I still don't quote like quite how the Statistics and Research section pans out either, given how it has the same issue of bullet-point-schizophrenia only the bullet points are hidden as different 'sections' that are frequently just a single sentence stating a poll for that region. In other words, that section still needs to be written out like an article.
::{{In5}}{{xt|The photo captions certainly are an issue; they should just describe the image, not use it to say "Oh look and that proves...".}}
::Oh man, check out that link I posted above. I'd be in favor of getting rid of all the images minus the graphs, fwiw. It's boring and clinical (the sleeping person with tie-dye dreams is fun, and don't get me started on the absolute riot that a Schopenhauer painting is), but this IS an encyclopedia.
::{{In5}}{{xt|and if "some say" something, it needs to be specified who "some" is and why their thoughts are of particular significance.}}
::Could you provide a list of such statements in the article? Your guys' discussion is a little too abstract for me, so it'd help to have some concrete examples we can look at here. At the very least, then we could go through and correct them.
::{{In5}}{{xt|I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few:}}
::It took all my attention just to get rid of the repetition and [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] helped changed it from the bullet point list monstrosity you see in that link to an actual ''article''. I think I complained somewhere else (on your talk page, [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]]?) that I didn't even get to the point of doublechecking all the sources. It's just too much work for me to bother with, and I'm sorry to say, but just between the two of you, I'm getting rather sick of reading and re-reading this article. It took all I had to just get rid of all the repeated sentences. I agree there are issues with the sources. Why don't you go through them more thoroughly for us?
::[[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 02:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||