Talk:"Genius" award recipient and other luminaries campaigning for worldwide renunciation of war

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Skenmy in topic Category improvement
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anyone else have problems with this? To me it apperas to be one giant advert for a left wing cause and utter drivel, of course however it can be posted but it raises serious NPOV issues. 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This needs a lot of work, it is not particularly easy to read, and labelling these people as "Geniuses" is POV. If it is repeatedly moved to published I suspect it'll end up with a {{NPOV}} tag. Brian McNeil / talk 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this seems pretty silly. That and the headline is completely unparsable.

Land mines


The Democracy Now source is a story about land mines and an NGO that works with civilians impacted by war, it isn't being used as a source - more as background.

The ZNet source is a blog-editorial that that makes an oblique reference to a planned campaign to make war impossible via grassroots campaigning, I've only checked one of the Wikipedia bio pages and it has no mention of this campaign. Is there anything on a more mainstream source? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Im currently searching
Note I edited my previous post to include my IP 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ive searched about 10 major news sources and cant find any recent articles to do with any of the people mentioned in the article, some dont even get results or have the last result from 1999 even! 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply



This article appears largely an unsourced editorial or review of the event, rather than a news article. Although the writing and concepts expressed are admirable, Wikinews is focused on reporting regarding news events, and factual statements must be sourced or reported as original reporting.

It should be noted that this article is written in an extremely sympathetic manner, and (on cursory review) does not appear to be completely neutral in its content. The article should be edited with an eye toward the neutral point of view requirements of Wikinews. - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Response to issues raised above


The article has been edited to take care of the issues listed above.

The issue of Geniuses is addressed with the fact that Dr. Farmer has received a 'genius' award and the others fit well within the stature of genius by any definition of genius.

While some POVs might consider the idea of world-wide renunciation of war drivel and silly, no doubt many of the things accomplished to date by the people listed have been considered impossible, far fetched, silly etc. The point is each of the people have accomplished considerable and their work to renouce war world-wide is news. It remains to be seen whether it gets done.

The Democracy Now story is a source for Strada, his work at the world level, his book and his depth of committment.

ZNET is not only a blog it is a Magazine that has been around for a good while.

I don't want to be seen as having the article 'repeatedly moved to published'. What is the expected way to have it published - Sorry I just don't know the process. What is the tag NPOV ?

The fact that other news sources have yet to pick the story up is another reason this is news. It is not a usual occurance for the 5 people and others that Zinn writes of to take on renouncing war on a world-wide scale.

When I checked Google I thought the five all had recent references.

About the sources. They are used to verify what is written about each person. Perhaps some could be called references. The article has been adjusted so all items are sourced. If there are any further items remaining that are not felt to be sourced let me know and I'll provide where the item is sourced, add a source or remove the item.

Let me know how to further proceed with this.

Easy 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

{{NPOV}} is an article issues tag which indicates an editor feels the article does not meet Wikinews's neutral point of view policies. I would encourage you to take a moment and review that policy, as well as What Wikinews is not, and then examine your article critically to measure if it meets the standards. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
"When I checked Google I thought the five all had recent references." They may have recent references but none appear to have anything to do with this article.



I don't have a clue for how to re-title this article, but there's no way I'd want to see it published with the current title. Anyone got an idea that could be used? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neutral Point Of View


I have read the above references about NPOV, agree with them and attempt to be mindful of them for this and other articles. I should hope that internal comments can also keep within the NPOV too. I would find it more helpful to focus on specific items at issue. I found the following NPOV description apt for this article and find it useful for discerning a neutral point of view. -- "The original formulation of NPOV The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikimedia founder." --

For a better title, adding the verb IS should make it pars better or perhaps Gathers as in the second option below which does not work as well as #1: 1. Renouncing War World-wide Is Gathering Great Geniuses 2. Renouncing War World-wide Gathers Great Geniuses

Easy 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

This article would be shot down instantly with the opening paragraph, it is nowhere near neutral. Brian McNeil / talk 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I'm not wanting to be discouraging by saying this, but it isn't easy to get something right for publishing.

Paragraph Removed


The paragraph has been removed. If would be helpful for me if a more explicit explanation was given about what needed to be adjusted in the paragraph since it was essentially a paraphrase of what the prime source had said. It would seem that both the source and those opposed to the sources statement would find the statement accurate - which is my understanding of what a neutral point of view is about.

Be that is it may - the paragraph is gone and as far as I can tell there are no further source issues or other issues.

If that is the case is it up to Brian McNeil / talk to change from develop to publish?? Or should I do that?

If there are further issues that need to be addressed please be specific and I'll take care of them.

Easy 13:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

The title needs fixing, among other things. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply



For a better title, adding the verb IS should make it pars better or perhaps Gathers as in the second option below which does not work as well as #1: 1. Renouncing War World-wide Is Gathering Great Geniuses 2. Renouncing War World-wide Gathers Great Geniuses

Let me know if either of these are acceptable title adjustment or some other suggestions or specifics about what needs to be addressed.

Easy 17:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

Yeah, its currently very hard to be motivated to read past the title. Nyarlathotep 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK #1 is now the title - With IS it should parse much better.

Further suggestions are most welcome. Thank you. Easy 18:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

I don't like the "is"; I'd suggest reordering it: "Geniuses Gather To Renounce War" is simple, sensible and accurate. How does one go about editing the title, anyway?

That title would make it sound too much like POV. "Genius" in who's mind? I propose to change the title to ""After the War", a plea to renounce war." I'm taking the first part from the original article written by Howard Zinn, which seems to be the main source for this article. The Maker 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply



At the moment this sounds like more like a press release than a news article. A short background and a small bio of all the people alleged to be involved. Are the bios even needed? There are links to wikipedia pages for each of them at the beginning, anyway.

Not all the people are publicly well known even though they have been active in significant world events - thus the brief statements. The statements also show they are and have been for a good while actively committed to the idea of renouncing war.

If there are specific issues for particular person(s) I'd be happy to adjust the statements. Easy 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

Title Next


The news story is about the idea of Renouncing War World-wide. And the geniuses that are helping to make this happen. For me it is not a POV to use the word Genius to describe the 5 people taking the initiative. The Foundation that gave one of the people their 'Genius' grant are not small potatoes, A Nobel Prize for literature is certainly in the realm of genius etc. Fair mind folks from all spectrums I doubt would quibble over the label of genius. There are plenty of other talking heads and heads of state that many would not accept the label of genius for. ' Here is a recent longer title -

Murdoch's News Corp. ends automated censorship of MySpace upon threat of blogger boycott'

that shows how longer titles can be used. Perhaps a longer title will help here.

So for this updated title how about this longer form:

Renouncing war world-wide taking form with help from gathering of geniuses

Better suggestions are most welcome. I like the 'Renouncing War World-wide Gathering Geniuses' but it seems to be toooooo problematic. Easy 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

Let me put it this way, every past title of this article which has involved "Renouncing War World-wide" has immediately stopped me from reading the article. First, articles involving excessive capitalization in the title are usually trash, so lets just assume that you said "Renouncing war world-wide". Nest, none of the titles involving that phrase have been sufficently readable for me to expect any redability in the article. I did eventually read the article, but not until it was entitled: "Genius" award recipient leads luminaries campaigning for worldwide end to war; an infinitely more sane title. Nyarlathotep 11:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course, the extra capitalization has been removed from the title to work with the standard style. My mistake - sorry. The readability has been significantly improved with the longer title: Renouncing war world-wide taking form with help from gathering of geniuses

Easy 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

But do you understand that "Renouncing war world-wide" is not a noun? Its not the name of any particular group, meeting, etc. AFAIK, so it doesn't really work for the setnence to pretend that its a proper noun. Nyarlathotep 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course I understand it can be considered not a complete sentence. In this case 'renoucing war world-wide' is an action, like 'Visiting The Senator' which could be used in an acceptable story title. Perhaps adding an explicit verb will help with the title structure: Renouncing war world-wide is taking form with help from a gathering of geniuses. or Renouncing war world-wide takes form with help from a gathering of geniuses. These should read better.

Since titles can be even longer than this, based on other recent headlines, perhaps using the form and length of recent headlines can also satisfy this issue. Here are recent longer headlines: Calls for aid to help feed millions, as East Africa plunges into drought Internal audit reveals IRS improperly identified hundreds of thousands of taxpayers as potential frauds Televangelist Pat Robertson suggests Sharon's stroke is act of God in response to Gaza withdrawal

For now I've updated the title to: Renouncing war world-wide takes form with help from a gathering of geniuses.

Further suggestions are most welcome. Easy 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

But what is "Renouncing war world-wide"? It sounds like an organizations title, but it isn't. I think its missleading to use it all. Nyarlathotep 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What exactly was wrong with the title I'd put on this earlier? Namely, "Genius" award recipient leads luminaries campaigning for worldwide end to war. Only one person has been given the title "genius" in a source-able way, luminaries is a description of the other involved parties that avoids labelling them with an unsourced accolade. (Basically what I'm saying is you can't call them all geniuses, it is POV and without source.) Brian McNeil / talk 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nothing AFAIK. Easy just really likes his gerund phrase, but it doesn't work well as a subject. Nyarlathotep 10:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, it doesn't really make much sense, nor does the latest page move. I am going to request that someone put this back to my title (it won't let me - probably because all the redirects haven't been maintained). --Brian McNeil / talk 10:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK I'll adjust the title to fix the genius issue. In a previous version there was a clear description showing that the other 4 people qualified for the term genius. By any reasonable definition the other four can be considered genius based on their accomplishments - Nobel prize for literature etc.

The Genius award person is not leading the other 4 - that is inaccurate. The issue is not ending war - it is to renouce it!

So here is a more accurate title that I think should satisfy the various issues:

"Genius" award recipient and other luminaries campaigning for worldwide renunciation of war

Hope this works.

Easy 13:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply

Category improvement


I recommend removing "Category:Peace" and adding "Category:Books". Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I concur, so consider it Done --Skenmy talk 17:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply