 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Re: Neutrality/POV for the Demolition Derby. Yes I'm a Freo fan, but please show me where I've shown bias or factual errors? I also think that records of important games like this should be recorded, maybe it can be cleaned up a bit in terms of style, but I strongly think that some commentary like this should be recorded. Not for every game, but for some significant games like this one, I think it is warranted.
- The commentary might not be biased or errored, but it is written almost entirely from a point of view. Examples of that are emotive terms like 'However West Coast settled the best' and 'the football in the second half was some of the most amazing ever seen at Subiaco'. This sort of commentary runs against the very important Wikipedia policy of writing only from a neutral point of view. I agree that famous games like this should be recorded, but it should be done either on Wikipedia without making a point of view, or on another website where you can write what you like. Also, I put the references/sources tag on the text because there is no way for anyone to know that the text you have written is made up or truthful. Another major Wikipedia tenet is that everything claimed must be verifiable by external sources, otherwise nobody can believe the text at face value. A benefit of finding good sources is that you have far more leeway to make emotive claims like the examples above, if you can show that somebody notable (say, a coach or famous sports commentator) also thought the same thing. Remy B 06:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Language
editI have noted that there has been a bit of back and forth on people censoring and uncensoring what Michael Braun said in the 1st Derby of 2007. What should the policy be?
- Have a read of the guideline, not policy, in Wikipedia:Profanity. It clearly states that you shouldn't use the f*** approach, BUT, the POLICY says that you need to have a source. All of the sources I found had the f*** style, so you can use a [sic] to indicate that this is what was REPORTED, not what was said, or that the news report did the censoring, not Wikipedia. The-Pope 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzYZiw5TEZ8 Have a listen to what he says. There's your source. Peter Greenwell (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)