I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both sides of an issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article.
Well, I do not think articles should "basically argue both sides of
an
issue". It should not be arguing for or against anything.
But omitting details -- why? There's plenty of room on the hard drive.
For me it's not about drive space, it's about writing encyclopedia articles instead of debate summaries. The end result just has the completely wrong tone. This is exactly what I was talking about recently on the Pump:
So many articles consist of person one saying: Some people believe <my POV>. Then person two adds: Other people, however, believe that <my POV>. What a mess. An article filled with this kind of POV-in-NPOV-clothing reads like a debate, not an encyclopedia article. Axlrosen 13:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
* How else do you present alternative points-of-view? Some people believe that Mother Teresa is a saint, others that she is a witch. Perhaps you would prefer only one author per article? Actually, Adam Carr -- a single author -- wrote an alternative version of the MT article with exactly that structure. And it reads like a ''real'' encyclopedia article. -- Viajero 14:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
** I guess my point is that a ''real'' encyclopedia article would spend 90% of its time on the facts of her life, her work, etc., and 10% of its time on the controversy surrounding her. On Wikipedia this often gets reversed, because everyone has to make sure that their own POV is represented (prefixed of course by "some people say..."). If you try to trim down the excessive debate in an article, then people accuse you of surpressing opinions that make you uncomfortable or whatever. (I'm not talking about the MT article specifically because I haven't been following that debate, but about WP in general. For example this is what happened on PETA recently.) Axlrosen 18:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Alex
There's a war going on as to what to call the Elizabeth Smart article. It can't be just [[Elizabeth Smart]], because that's a disambiguation page. It can't be [[Elizabeth Anne Smart]] because she isn't known by her middle name. It was at [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] yesterday, but is now at [[Elizabeth Smart (2000s media sensation)]] , which, IMHO, is not only offensive to her, but a ridiculous name.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
RickK wrote:
There's a war going on as to what to call the Elizabeth Smart article. It
can't be just [[Elizabeth Smart]], because that's a disambiguation page. It can't be [[Elizabeth Anne Smart]] because she isn't known by her middle name. It was at [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] yesterday, but is now at [[Elizabeth Smart (2000s media sensation)]] , which, IMHO, is not only offensive to her, but a ridiculous name.
The '2000s media sensation' one is just out of the question, completely... kidnap victim seems less than ideal, but I can't think of a better one offhand.I'd say stick with that.
-- Jake
Rick wrote:
There's a war going on as to what to call the Elizabeth Smart article. It can't be just [[Elizabeth Smart]], because that's a disambiguation page. It can't be [[Elizabeth Anne Smart]] because she isn't known by her middle name. It was at [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] yesterday, but is now at [[Elizabeth Smart (2000s media sensation)]] , which, IMHO, is not only offensive to her, but a ridiculous name.
Using the middle name "Ann" (rather than "Anne"?) is the sensible solution. (Assuming, of course, that it is her correct middle name.) To say that it can't be used because of a rule that prevents it when she isn't known by her middle name seems like policy running-amok over common sense A middle name is a "natural" disambiguator, though I haven't been easily able to track down the author's middle name.
I doubt that Elizabeth Ann became a kidnap victim or media sensation out of any premeditated act of her own to get her 15 minutes of fame. Any identification of her on that basis is demeaning and sensationalistic, notwithstanding the fact that it is so far her only claim to fame. It is unlikely that anything in the near future will change that, though it is certainly possible that she may yet become newsworthy in her own right as she grows up.
The author, by virtue of her accomplishment, is certainly the more important of the two Elizabeth Smarts. Her impression will be a lot more long-lasting than a kid who. to the delight of the paparazzi, had the misfortune to be kidnapped.
I believe that the article should move back forthwith to [[Elizabeth Ann Smart]]. Unfortunately, the move function did not work for it, but if it stays where it is I will have no compunctins about using the more tedious cut-and-paste process.
Ec