a reply |
Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) Sorry, but no |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:However, we can leave all this aside, as [[WP:EL#How_to_link]] clearly states that „If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.” |
:However, we can leave all this aside, as [[WP:EL#How_to_link]] clearly states that „If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.” |
||
:Therefore, over the next couple of months I will add summarizing tags to all external links that are not self-explanatory. We can, of course, discuss about the wording. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
:Therefore, over the next couple of months I will add summarizing tags to all external links that are not self-explanatory. We can, of course, discuss about the wording. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Sorry, but no == |
|||
I'm afraid that we don't add a special main namespace page for bibliographies, so have redirected to the main article and have migrated all info except external links into the [[Opus Dei]] article. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:54, 18 July 2006
Bias ?
In the "Sites Critical of Opus Dei", I removed several harsh attacks that disparaged the sites being linked to. Somebody repeatedly characterized some of the sites as being "sites by a communist". Please, No Personal Attacks-- the author's political and economic views are not relevant. Former numeraries were called "alleged former numeraries", but there's no evidence to suggest they are lying about their former membership-- and none of the positive numeriary testimonies carried the word "alleged".
Just a bibliography-- don't insert needless disparaging commentary or personal attacks in here. --Alecmconroy 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nice try, Alec. But the explanatory remark that was attached to the links to both „unofficial“ sites run by Mond is no personal attack. It might have been 55 years ago, but McCarthy is dead for some time. Fact is, the Wikipedian who runs both "Opus Dei - The Unofficial Homepage" and "The Unofficial Opus Dei FAQ" explains himself in wikipedia openly as a “Member of the Communist Party” (see Mond) and “bin kommunist und mitglied der KPÖ“ (transl. I’m a communist and member of the communist party of Austria) [1]. Obviously, Mond himself hadn’t any problem with this, and frankly, why should he. McCarthyism is dead, and the communist party (KPÖ) in Austria is perfectly legal, as are most communist parties in western Europe. Therefore, regarding this as „disparaged” or a „personal attack“ smells like a somewhat outdated US-POV.
- Consequently, you should consider link-tags as „member of Opus Dei“, „by a member of Opus Dei“ or „priest of Opus Dei” also as personal attacks.
- About „not relevant“, you must be jokin’. Though Mond may have a personal cause [2] for his hostility, his main line of argument against Opus Dei is that it’s „fascist“. On his „The Unofficial Opus Dei FAQ“ website you’ll find the words „fascism“ and „fascist“ about 60 times. Now, that’s not „a communist point of view“? On his main website he even cites Karl Marx to argue „Why you should not use Micro$oft products“.[3] He is free to do so, of course, but please don’t say „it’s not relevant“.
- My main reason for adding a „label“ or small summary to both links, was to give the visitor at least a hint of what to expect, from whom and from what point of view. Mond claims neither to be a member or an ex-member of Opus Dei, nor to have personal experience with Opus Dei, nor to be a theologian, a sociologist, or a psychologist, nor to speak for a church or an anti-cult group. But his central theme is fascism.
- One more reason for an explanatory link summary is that the original titles of both Mond-websites, but especially of „Opus Dei - The Unofficial Homepage”, are somewhat deceptive, whether deliberately or not. In my experience, websites labeled as “unofficial” usually are fan websites with a positive attitude towards their subject.
- However, we can leave all this aside, as WP:EL#How_to_link clearly states that „If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.”
- Therefore, over the next couple of months I will add summarizing tags to all external links that are not self-explanatory. We can, of course, discuss about the wording. --Túrelio 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but no
I'm afraid that we don't add a special main namespace page for bibliographies, so have redirected to the main article and have migrated all info except external links into the Opus Dei article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)