Talk:Knights of Honor

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

If you are going to make statements like "incredible numbers of members" you need to provide citations to back it up. It would be better to use actual numbers and try to retain a NPOV. Tedward 13:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I am not a Knight of Honor myself, I've used all the facts I can think of in that respect... as for NPOV I've done the best I can, I may have liked them but not enough to be biased. (=Nemesis=) 18:47, 6 June 2007 (GMT)
Actually your language is very biased, probably not intentionally but biased nonetheless. ie: "causing a war" clearly assigns blame and implies violent intent; "incredible numbers of members" could be three or three hundred depending on the context but clearly attempts to put a positive spin on the actions of a particular group. Neither of these examples are "facts". They are both opinion. "A flame war developed between KoH and a group who called themselves the anti-KoH." is neutral as it assigns no blame or motives. "The KoH attracted X number of new members representing a XX% increase in only X days." would be a fact but would probably need a footnote indicating the source of the numbers. Is that more clear? Tedward 14:38, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
There may be a few places where I can make that better but since a lot of what I've written is based on second-hand information, I can't be as precise as you seem to expect. I'll do what I can, naturally, but if it's precision you'd like, I suggest asking conductorjoe, I mean, he was supposed to be the person who founded the KOH. But then again, that may not rid us of the bias problem. (=N=) 10:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I like the changes you made. Thanks for doing what you can. It is hard trying to write some of these articles. I always like to think leaving it as a stub makes it a "work in progress" and thus an invitation to others to add or correct if they know more which covers me if I have made errors in fact or I stray into too much opinion. Tedward 11:11, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you very much.... I may later ask someone I know about facts concerning the organisation, and plug them in. I'm afraid I won't be able to ask conductorjoe himself, seeing as he interpreted a protest as a threat that I would crack iBricks, and said he'd never speak to me again. I could however think of a lot of information to add to the iBricks article's controversy section, but as you probably know there was a squabble over that, very uncivilised in my opinion. (=N=) 07:27, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I've just thought about things and realised that in fact none of this information is 100% trustworthy as all my information is from different sources which are all biased. So could someone put up one of those sticker thingies at the top of the article or just get rid of the whole thing, or whatever it is that happens to uncertified information? (=N=) 04:26, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I read the article. Getting rid of the whole thing sounds like a good idea. Power 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the article remains biased. It is also historical (not in the good sense!) unsourced and trivial. 'One of those sticker thingies at the top' is an inadequate solution.Claude Bombarde 22:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I see no significance worth preserving. Tedward 17:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools