Talk:The Best Men Can Be
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Best Men Can Be article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Repeated removal of important context
You do not need a source to say this campaign advertisement is about promoting positive ethical values among men. That is the basis of the campaign's existence. MOS:LINKS does not outright bar links in quotes, they just have to accurately reflect what the author meant. In addition, the constant removal of a statement from the lead that rebuts criticism of the ad, in my opinion, contradicts WP:LEAD and NPOV; a lead has to summarize the article's entire contents, and we most reflect all viewpoints prominent in reliable sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Mainly conservatives?
The wording of this article greatly disturbs and worries me.
"Having faced wide criticism, mainly from conservatives" - seriously? This is objective writing?
If Wikipedia is starting to be a political forum rather than a source for objective information we are moving in a very bad direction. Wikipedia should NOT be a forum for liberal (or conservative) viewpoints. (And before anyone goes off on me, I'm a Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, the least crazy of the three candidates, which I never thought would be possible......).
If you want to include liberal and conservative responses to the ad in the body of the article, fine, that is appropriate- but to include this leading statement in the introduction to the topic is absolutely disingenuous.
Statement in lead
We have: "The "We Believe" advertisement was the subject of minor controversy". Minor controversy? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK it's a major controversy, with all the main media outlets covering it, some in length. I propose 'minor' be changed to 'major', or at the very least, 'minor' be omitted. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe just "subject of controversy"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Removes the subjectivity. Maybe you could change it later (I think you're in the US?) if no one else chips in. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Already done by another editor. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Removes the subjectivity. Maybe you could change it later (I think you're in the US?) if no one else chips in. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Gender studies articles
- Low-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- Start-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- Unassessed Men's Issues articles
- Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles