Talk:Forward

message: As the English wikipedia should represent (as best as possible) a world-view and not a regional view, I think the both of the terms 'association football' and 'soccer' should both be used in the sports entry for Striker.  'Association football', as the historical and formal name of the sport, should be present.  However, that term is unknown and the word 'soccer' is exclusively used in American culture, so that should be included also. Eliminating either would be steering the entry towards a bias in favor of a particular region of the English-speaking world regarding a world-wide sport. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Association football is the official name of the sport and soccer is a coloquialism. I think that the use of coloquialisms should be avoided. The use of the word soccer has been phased out of titles such as Football, (soccer) has been moved to asocation football. I think that the addition of the word is unecessary and clunky, increasing the length of sentences needlesly. An example where coloquialisms are not used in title when explaining things is vegetables. Things such as aubergines and courgettes are called completly diffreny things in the United States, but only one term is used to remove confusion. The titles are not Aubergines, (eggplant) or Zucchini, (courgette).--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mixing up two separate discussions.  I have no issue with your assertion for article titles.  This is not about the title of an article, it is about a entry description accompanying an entry on a disambiguation page. Additionally, in the United States 'soccer' is not a colloquialism -- it's the actual term.  The FIFA governing body for the sport in the US is named the United States Soccer Federation and that organization has included the word 'soccer' in it's name for the past 63 years and has not used the word 'football' at all in it's name for the last 34. So, the deeming of 'soccer' as a colloquialism is subject to regional point of view. -Gwguffey (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A coloquialsim is a local term used instead of the actual name it's like using tatters instead of potatos. The USA is just one local area which uses the term soccer and outside it is very liite used. The USSF can call itself what it likes, tomorrow it could re-name itself the Assocation Football of the United States governing body. It is highly unlikely, but it could still happen. The term soccer is restricted to the USA and this is not US wikipedia. I say the term should not be used as it creates unecessary confusion and adds too much information on the disambiguation page. It is the same as the vegetable example using coloquialisms to try and remove confusion, Its not done because the terms are accepted. If the term soccer was added it could be argued why not add soccer after every single mentioning of association football.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, this is not US wikipedia, nor is it everywhere-but-US wikipedia. Your argument has come down to defining 'actual names' and 'colloquialism' which fall into the category of ownership of words.  The 'actual name' for the sport in one region is considered a 'colloqualism' in another, so the asserting that only one definition as correct is subject to regional bias; so neither is truly correct or actual. As the goal of the article is to assist all English-speaking readers, not just those in a particular region, I would simply ask for consideration of a more inclusive global view (both terms) in this circumstance than an exclusionary non-US view that imposes its ownership of the ability to define the terms in question in a manner that is neither universal nor undebatable. Gwguffey (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying but by the addition of local vatiations on the word, it is concevable that other local vaations could be added. I say we stick to the official name the original rules set out and that is association football.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  association football and soccer 

message: There is currently a discussion regarding the deleting of the following article Forward (generic name of solicialist publications).  However, even though the discussion continues as to the validity to the source article... the entry was removed in the disambiguous list of the word "Forward".  The link was removed from the "Politics" section, and should be returned until a determination has been made on the source article.
It was removed for purely political purposes because President Obama has recently selected the word "Forward" as a campaign slogan, and this article can be seen to reflect negatively on that choice... which is the reason this article has been removed from the list.
Please re-insert the link in the Politics section until a determination has been made in the article in question... and let a due course take its turn.
Thanks!
TreyAU21 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 2 May 2012 

message: You should undo that CarsonsDad. TreyAU21 is a sockpuppet of a group sent here by canvassing (link: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/may/02/proggies-muck-wikipedia/). Sockpuppet page available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nintendude64. Someone should REALLY revert this.
While we're at it, could someone please undo what was done here, too? I really think that's just ridiculous, and it's another of those same sockpuppets. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forward&diff=next&oldid=490298077 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.69 (talk) 17:07, May 2, 2012‎ (UTC)
: Not done: The sockpuppet investigation you linked to has also been since shown to be inconclusive, save meatpuppetry concerns which can't be addressed by that process. However, regardless of the origin of the editor, it's a valid point. The status of the page is irrelevant; it still exists on the site, which is all that matters. Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia should serve as, well, disambiguation pages, and not play into any particular set of politics. Also, the "socialist" word in the Publications section was already removed by another editor.  elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents: the link to the aforementioned darticle should remain on this page, unless that article is deleted. (deletion discussions are already underway on the article's talk page). Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, no doctoring or censoring for political reasons. Let's keep it that way. Danski14(talk) 20:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Revert Edit request on 2 May 2012 

message: The Forward (Yiddish: פֿאָרווערטס; Forverts), commonly known as The Jewish Daily Forward, is a Jewish-American newspaper published in New York City. The publication began in 1897 as a Yiddish-language daily.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  why not mention [[The Forward]]?

message: If we are having a section on the political meanings and references of Forward  shouldn't we include a link to the Foward Communist Party (Joglekar) which is already an Indian political party Stub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Communist_Party_(Joglekar).  In addition Julia Gillard's 2010 campaign slogan was moving forward. As sited in the wikipedia article on her. Additional uses of the word forward with a political reference include Mao's "Great Leap Forward", the peoples revolutionary government of Grenada slogan of "Forward Ever, Backward Never" and many more.  I believe all these should be presented in this section. http://www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com/slogans.html,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.3 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward Communist Party (Joglekar)