Talk:Aberdeen/pre-2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive of discussion for the article on Aberdeen, Scotland; for all discussions on or before December 31st 2005.
Discussion topics are in date order (earliest first) with the first post of each topic defining the date the topic is ordered in.
[edit] Various points (had been without subject headings)
Aberdeen is not the capital of Aberdeenshire; the city of Aberdeen is a regional area in itself... an enclave within the regional area of Aberdeenshire.
This article is extremely dated.
What are all unnecessary the question marks for in the first two paragraphs? Are the facts correct or not? Deus Ex 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality dispute
Severely biased language and original judgements are used throughout this article. For example, 'splendid architecture', 'of good design', 'the distinction between it and New Aberdeen can no longer be said to exist', 'Aberdeen's popular name of the "Granite City", is justified' and so on. 119 10:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Uh... what? A couple of nice comments about architecture taken from the 1911EB are hardly a major POV issue; the cities are effectively one and the same (I am utterly confused as to how this is an original judgement; ring up the council or look at a map); it is popularly named that and this is for the somewhat NPOV reason that big chunks of it are made out of granite. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about here... Shimgray 10:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Shimgray here; while some parts may be phrased imperfectly, there should be a real serious dispute before we put the NPOV tag up.--Pharos 11:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with most of that. I personally see nothing wrong with the language of the article in its present form. Raising an issue with the 'Granite City' bit in particular is... well... questionable to say the least; it's not exactly presenting original research or anything.
I would imagine lot of the more flowery language is straight from the 1911 Britannica. This could probably benefit from being brought up to date a bit anyway? As Shimgray says, I don't think it's a huge POV issue, and it's definitely not 'severe'. The disputed POV flag basically says: "This sucks. Its current state this article is pretty much unfit to use at all until people sort things out. Try again later", which is obviously not the case with this. Hence, I've removed the tag, but possibly someone (119, Shimgray?) could constructively improve the bits they don't like? — pmcm 16:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
And another thing... you can't just slap a 'disputed!' tag on when nobody's actually had any problems with what you're saying. Possibly nobody would dispute the points you raise, so it should be some sort of cleanup tag if anything. Better still, make the edits you'd like to see (taking careful note of this section of the NPOV page; don't just delete the bits you don't approve of) and ask for feedback on the talk page. Just deciding unilaterally that the article is suddenly disputed is not helpful, nor very encouraging to constructive progress. — pmcm 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've neither time nor expertise to fix this article. pmcm, please don't talk down to me as though a newbie or lecture me on "constructive progress"--it's actually not so constructive. Here are some bits of obviously biased language still in the article:
- a feat of extraordinary engineering skill
- which commands a fine view of the city
- is the fine building of the Union Bank
- the originality of genius
- most of them of good design
- The city is blessed with amenities
- The phrases "the distinction between it and New Aberdeen can no longer be said to exist" is stating a judgement as fact. Local government or locals no longer see a distinction? Say that, and cite it. "Aberdeen's popular name of the "Granite City", is justified" explicitly states that this nickname is suitable--that's an opinion. Say that the city is built of granite if you like, but saying the nickname is "justified" is not neutral. 119 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've neither time nor expertise to fix this article. pmcm, please don't talk down to me as though a newbie or lecture me on "constructive progress"--it's actually not so constructive. Here are some bits of obviously biased language still in the article:
Great! Thanks for pointing out the bits you don't like. I'll try to take some time to go over them. The time it took you to find them all, you could have re-phrased them all, or just posted your last post initially in the talk page (possibly with a sort of "would you mind helping" rather than a "this is wrong fix it now" tone?) in the first instance.
Talking down to people, and lecturing them on appropriate language (and inventing disputes all by yourself) doesn't lead to constructive progress. Thanks for the clarification of the inappropriate bits; I do see where you're coming from, I just don't think the brusque manner in which you go about highlighting the issues engenders much hope of getting people to help you out by improving the article. — pmcm 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
