Talk:To the Struggle Against World Terrorism

message: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2007/06/25/070625ta_talk_finnegan --71.60.175.60 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/tributes/teardrop.asp
It seems like most people have been slowly finding out about this through an email going around this year (2009). Even though it was donated in 2006. I wonder why there were no stories in the papers or on TV about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlysh (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fascinating to watch. The media basically ignored it. Professional artists, and those with artistic pretensions, ignore it as a monstrosity. Yet there is this grassroots interest. I know one person who plans on driving 6 hours each way just to go see it. So it's a case of popular appeal and professional disdain. The story will keep developing over the coming years. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to laugh sometimes at Wiipedia's double standards. Take an article about a discovery in medicine or physics - would that have content with opinions about the accuracy and value of that discovery obtained from assorted pedestrians who just happened to be walking past the hospital or the research facility that made the discovery. I doubt it! Yet it seems permissable to have that sort of random, unexpert, "opinions of public", gathered without any polling rigor or proper methodology on articles about public sculpture. Some random Joe calls it a "breathtakingly beautiful creation" and that's enough to get that opinion into some journalist's article, and into this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Just because something is in a reliable source (and I'm not entirely sure an opinion piece in the "letters to the editor" section rises to that, but let's assume so for the sake of argument) doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Quotations from people who have no relevance are themselves irrelevant. Their inclusion is undue weight toward those individuals' opinions and false balance. Why would you place a random, unnamed person's quote up against that of The New York Times or similarly notable institution? The simple answer is, you don't. --Xanzzibar (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree public opinion is non-notable in art. Critically acclaimed movies can bomb with the public, and reverse. Public vs critical reception is a big part of the art world. It's not a false balance it's different POVs. Unlike movies there's no way to measure public reception of a monument since there are no ticket sales (?), other than the available quotes from the public. -- GreenC 17:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say public opinion is not notable. Random people's individual opinions are not. This is why the undue weight guidelines ask for prominent people who hold that view, or sources summarizing the general feeling of the public. Public opinion can be gauged without use of ticket sales, so don't be disingenuous;  already gave examples of that above. What we need is a good secondary sources (i.e., not an opinion piece like is cited here) summarizing how people in general feel. If there's "popular appeal and professional disdain" as you feel there is, find a reliable source that says so. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: There is nothing inherently wrong with an OpEd when it's in a reliable source by an established journalist on a subject of artistic opinion. Mike Morley's bio. The source summarizes what "ordinary non-artistic folks think" in general, which of course is always a matter of opinion but that doesn't keep us from reporting on those opinions even if you disagree with them. The other problem is the article now has a POV problem only reporting negative views, with positive reports actively being deleted from the article. This is a problem.  -- GreenC 04:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Xanzzibar but AFAIC my problem is with your refusal to attribute the views about the public reception to the monument to the author of that opinion piece in what I can only assume is your attempt to exaggerate the significance of what he wrote by writing it in Wikipedia's voice. I've also removed your POV tag as the reversion of that material has the force of consensus, so my disagreement with that tag means that we default to the tentative consensus which did not include that tag; do not restore that tag and you should consider yourself lucky given what you've written on this article that I am even considering re-adding your material. Wingwraith (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with attribution but not the way it was worded. Also you shouldn't remove NPOV tags when there is an ongoing NPOV dispute, they help bring in additional participation and it makes it look like your trying to prevent community participation. If a dispute continues I'll start a resolution process and let the community decide, there are many ways to resolve it. It is a controversial subject, evidently. Two users on a talk page is not "force of consensus". At best at this point we can agree on wording but if not then there are other options, I don't really care either way how it gets resolved. I'll off start with some alternative wording. -- GreenC 16:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations inclusions

message: Since this is a monument, shouldn't we use the Infobox: Monument for it? This is one that I found on another monument page, maybe we should use something like it for the Teardrop Memorial?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_a_New_Man
I'm new to Wiki, so I understand if this isn't a helpful suggestion, but it seems like it might help to make the information easier for the reader to quickly understand.
Arizona Ranger With The Big Iron (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go for it! -- GreenC 18:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an Infobox