This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abanima (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 16 February 2010 (→The criticism section again (2010): grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:44, 16 February 2010 by Abanima (talk | contribs) (→The criticism section again (2010): grammar)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Misplaced Pages Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Older conversations have been archived here.
Unblocking of Arabic wikipedia in Syria was on February 13, 2009. I made a mistake last time. --Ciphers (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank u friend --Osm agha (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section
Several administrators are trying to remove the criticism section because they believe it violates the "good faith" policy. Of course, this is a misunderstanding because this is not a talk page but a criticism section in an article. In a "criticism section" you get criticism, there is no assumption of good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.178 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you would like to keep the criticism section, you will need to rewrite that encyclopedically. Please read this as a guide. Articles should not contain trivia lists, and should be written as a neutral point of view. This is also the English Misplaced Pages. It would be much helpful if the sources were in English, especially for such controversial topics. This has nothing to do with the good-faith policy, but an apology for the attacks would be appreciated. ZooFari 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you will need to prove that the points listed under criticism are really trivia and not neutral.
First, technically, your claims are invalid since the criticism section is very coherent (it is not a listing of miscellaneous points) and the points listed under it are all directly related to the clearly meaningful title of the section, which is "criticism." You need to show how this is a trivia section? You seem to know the titles of the laws but not how to apply them in real situations.
Your other claim, neutrality, is even less valid, because this is a criticism section-- if it were neutral then it would have deserved to be deleted since it would not make sense. The section simply lists critical points.
Now to the discussion of your ulterior, emotion-based motives. How can you call by trivia such serious criticism as accusing the encyclopedia of having systemic bias in Islam-related topics, and noting that over 60% of its articles are stubs (which usually means they contain nothing at all but the title), etc. You are obviously biased yourself since you're an administrator in Misplaced Pages, but the Arabic Wiki is nothing like the English Wiki at all, it is just 100,000 empty pages with administrators who mostly do nothing but enjoying trips to the Wiki conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- "A list" is the problem of that section. Misplaced Pages is supposed to give information efficiently, and a list is not it. Your list states points that others do not agree on, hence not making it neutral or not being provided by the most significant views (see WP:NPOV). Lists on Misplaced Pages should not contain information like that because they aren't supposed be composed of trivia but rather state complete points of a subject. I suggest you rewrite the section as paragraphs. Also, I'm not an administrator. ZooFari 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided anything new; what you say is just a reiteration of the previously refuted claims; though in a less organized fashion this time.
Again: first of all, Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections is irrelevant to this discussion since, as it clearly says, it deals with lists of miscellaneous information. I fail to see the relation between this and the criticism section.
Your rather personal statement that "a list is not an efficient manner of presenting information" is, besides being weird, not mentioned in any of the pages you referred to. We need to see a clear text saying that lists should be avoided-- "lists" not "lists of miscellaneous information," don't jumble things.
Your definition of neutrality in a criticism section is problematic. The section contains referenced and logical statements that are raised in criticism of Ar Wiki-- of course the criticized party won't agree with the statements, they are not supposed to. The points in the section are logical and commonly raised by critics (sadly, most of those write in Arabic not English!).
Anyway, I might rewrite the section as a paragraph if this is what it will take to end the discussion. Though I don't think this demand is properly founded based on the pages you referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, do what you think is best. I just know that it can be better. ZooFari 03:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the criticism section. Its sources are not accepted. The first one says that the content in ar wikipedia is weak. It does not say The Arabic Misplaced Pages suffers from heavy biased content, specifically in Islamic topics.The seconed one, Knol, is not a reliable source. Therefore, this section does not contain any acceptable sources. --Osm agha (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section again (2010)
The Criticism section as it appeared and as النول insists on restoring it is invalid. It contained three statements: the first, that Arabic Misplaced Pages was "accused of bias, specifically in Islamic topics", and refers to an article at rnw.nl which does not mention neither Islam nor religion at all. The second statement reported the number of stubs in Arabic Misplaced Pages, referenced by the number of items in the Arabic equivalent of Category:Stubs. Fair enough but is this criticism? It's merely a fact, and the interpretation of this fact as "criticism" is done by the author, i.e. original research. The third statement is "One journalist claimed that the 2008 Wikimania in Cairo concluded that Arabic Misplaced Pages was the worst of all of the Wikipedias." It is not clear why the claim of that journalist is important enough to be included in this article. If it is indeed one of the official conclusions of Wikimania, then it would be more logical to refer to an authoritative report about Wikimania itself. Thus, the section did not contain any notable information and was deleted. --Abanima (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories: