Talk:Mozart and the Whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like the information Jerry provided, and it's good to know that they are releasing the thing. But definitely it needs to be rewritten to have a neutral point of view.

To be picky about it, to 'meet the NPOV standards', since NPOV isn't a 'point of view', even a neutral one. That said - agreed. I don't think this is accomplished by removing helpful facts - taking them to a temporary subpage or the talk page and reworking them, I can see; the addition was reverted altogether, which I objected to. Any thoughts how to prepare a good compromise version? (I haven't been thinking about it and should have been...) Schissel : bowl listen 11:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

As to the reversion, it's much preferable in this case (I say this because the person making the edit is involved in the film, and because the film is a fictionalized biography of the editor- an odd edit to revert!) to make the edit NPOV by editing... and not by erasure.

Disclaimer: I've met the man. My point still stands. Schissel : bowl listen 23:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

you've met this guy? in person??? what what's he like?

Yes, he's written some books, appeared on 60 Minutes twice, and given talks at some conferences where I was in the audience (whose audience I was in? I was in the audience of one of his talks in particular, in which he talked about support groups, their importance in his life, encouraging others to start them- well and carefully but to do so- in their own areas). He's an intelligent and good fellow. Wanted to make the point that I'd say my points stood on their own, for all that I needed to point out the bias I might have. Apologies if it seemed like namedropping instead :) Schissel : bowl listen 01:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS

Then feel free to help edit it so that it is. Schissel : bowl listen 04:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

I'm unfortunately going to be removing everything under this line:

The following contributions are written by me, Jerry Newport. I hope any potential reviser will respect the source :)

Sorry Jerry, we actually can't respect the source because there is, in fact, no source to be respected. From the above linked Wikipedia policy:

• Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

If your contributions were posted on an official web site, they might get worked into the article. There's no way to verify that this is even you, making the information not credible. Everything in this article needs a source to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. You can still look up your contributions in the page's history if you'd like to save them yourself. Mrtea (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to an interview with Jerry Newport. I will try to work in some of the facts from that interview. Perl 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Situations_and_handling et seq. - the latter portion of this article as it is presently violates important portions of official policy blatantly. I won't slap a {{NPOV}} or similar on this article but I will suggest that this article be changed from a blog post to a Wikipedia article soonest. Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, with no response after a week-plus... No NPOV tag needed, there's been no "Dispute" which an NPOV tag requires. However, such a long segment about an extreme POV is against policy. Rewriting -is- necessary for balance, as that section does say.(Note: not artificial "balance"; again as the policy says, a minority view does not get equal space with a majority view without especially compelling reasons.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)