Talk:Society for Truth and Light

message: The article needs work to make it NPOV.  This might be achievable, for example, by finding sources that identify this group as a "hate group" and attributing this label to the sources.  TableManners 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs POV work 

message: I moved the following recent contributions here:
*reference1 
*reference2
*reference3
*reference4
*reference5
*<nowiki>reference6
Because they are written in Chinese, requires specialist knowledge.  Also, many of them appear to be blog entries of some sort.  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese language references 

message: This article needs sources badly; calling something a "hate group" without a single source is egregious.  --Haemo 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sources 

message: Due to the current POV situation of this article, I have tagged POV in the article. If the situation doesn't improve I may consider an AfD. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really fit criteria for AfD - the group is definitely notable.  But it does need to be edited to read less like an attack page.  We need to work on verifying the claims and deleting claims that can't be backed up by reliable sources.  We also need to make sure that opinions are not presented as statements of fact - if possible we should attribute in the content itself who it was that said this or that.  For example, who exactly called the group a "hate group"?  I'm pretty sure the group itself wouldn't call itself a hate group, so that shouldn't be presented as if it was a fact.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently someone is trying to remove the POV tag as soon as it is added. Right now we don't need an AfD, but probability some kind of page protection. Feathered serpent 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may consider half-protection (well it's supposed to be enough to keep anon. IPs away from reverting our anti-POV edits). What do you guys think? --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea.  Post the request.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request posted. Feathered serpent 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The request is declined. I guess we all have to watchlist this page closely and revert as needed. Feathered serpent 06:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag marked in article 

message: When adding references, please note that footnotes should go after punctuations.  So they should look like this:
They also stated this.example source
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is British (before) style vs American style (after). As long as we are consistent we are fine.Feathered serpent 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's "Chicago style" versus scientific journal style.  It doesn't really matter, but the suggested "after" is better IMO; see WP:FOOTNOTES for more.  --Haemo 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes after punctuations 

message: I have fixed a bunch of stuff but more needs to be done....
:Use of the word "The Establishment" is non-specific and generally unencylopedic, at least in this context and may be seen as derogatory as it is often used in slang to indicate an out of date, bureaucratic and stuffy authority.
:* Labeling the "Broadcasting Authority" as "The Authority" may be confusing and leading due to the multiple implications of the word "authority". Further, the group is generally referred to by Hong Kong media as "BA" after initial full name introduction.
:* Labeling and lumping together opposing group such as "liberal" and categorizing opposition together as "Gay rights, sex workers rights and liberal Christian" with no supporting references creates bias assertions.
:* creating emotive and leading sentences and conclusions such as "the authority refused to back down" is non impartial in tone and creates a "good guys v bad guys" scenario and is POV.--DCX (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to find some sources but not speaking Chinese, it is kinda rough. - Schrandit (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 years later and article still has many problems , neutrality and incorrect format of non-english references 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]