Just curious what the specific objections are with the NPOV tag? --Crassus 11:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mainly the comments about Whitefire. From reading it, I get the impression that I am only being told one side of the story.
- To make the article more encycloedpic, I'd be all for removing a good chunk of that section and simply saying, "the list was non-operation due to technical problems" or whatever. Of course, if you want to write up the story of how the list got to be non-functional on another website and link to it from this article, I don't think there'd be any problems with that. :-) --Douglas Muth 13:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, like The_Astonishing_Treehouse_of_the_Secret_Moon's history, this is nothing more than a personal attack by Crassus that he is using WikiFur to host. The facts presented are in fact very inaccurate, and the situation was much more complicated than he presents it. Including ownership disputes and technical problems involved in the move. It is also not the only service that went down at that time, the fur.com news server went permanently down at that time due to lack of bandwidth.
I would request that all or most of this article be deleted. I would do it myself, but that would be no more unbiased than Crassus' actions. --WhiteFire 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is factually inaccurate, or you feel it incorrectly represents your opinions or motives, you are welcome to fix it. If you can provide a more thorough explanation of why the service went down and remained down (assuming this fact is not in question too), then that would be very welcome as well. Including more information generally makes plain the reasons behind events that can otherwise seem mysterious and which lead to speculation about the causes. A similar situation occurred at Talk:Yerf
- If you are not at liberty to divulge this information (or do not wish to for some reason) . . . well, we're kinda left with an article which at best says "Crassus said this from his point of view, while WhiteFire says that there's more to the story, but isn't going to tell it." This is, however, better than nothing, and better than just having Crassus' viewpoint. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the philosophy here of preserving one sided arguments and unverifiable opinions stated as fact, but I guess I'll give my side as best I remember it. *shrug* --WhiteFire 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some things are definitely true or false, and these matters should be settled conclusively where possible. Where this is not the case, we can and should give the facts about people's opinions, and let people make their own minds up about the matter. Usually they will consider what they know of the people and events concerned - if an argument seems particularly one-sided, readers are rightly going to give it scrutiny, and give those views that are backed up by evidence more credibility. Unverifiable opinions reflect far more on the giver than the target. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, more sections are nice and all, but I don't see the point in pulling out one paragraph out of the middle of the history to put it out of order so you can have a 'controversy' section? I mean, that might be great for gossip hounds, but it confuses the actual history of what happened to the list. The timing of that disagreement is important to the list's eventual termination. --WhiteFire 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Revered edit I considered to further cause NPOV problems because it was stating events that are disputed as facts rather than as Crassus' view of the events. --WhiteFire(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)