Talk:English Bay, Vancouver

English Bay rock stacks (rock art)
If anyone is interested, here's an interesting set on Flickr, licensed CC-BY 

Have a look. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues in edits by Deepavali 2014
This edit by Deepavali 2014 actually introduces bias into the article, and saying that the cleanup efforts were "exceptional and world class" does not conform to WP:NPOV. One issue is that it uses peacock terms (see WP:PEACOCK), another is that it appears to give undue weight to a particular POV (see WP:UNDUE), another is that it doesn't use an impartial tone (see WP:IMPARTIAL) about a controversial subject (oil spills). I reverted their edit, and then I tried to approach the editor on their Talk page. I encouraged them to read the policies and asked them to change their other edits as appropriate. They responded by reverting my original revert, and leaving this message on my Talk page: "Some reports are that the oil spill is not that bad and that is not coming from the ship or oil company. The mayor may be biased because he has a political agenda. I didn't see it and even if I did, user reporting is not allowed. Please do not have only a pov article. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" Since user talk pages are for discussing editor conduct, not article content, I've moved the discussion here (which is why I gave the above background info, so that other editors reading this understand the relevant context and history thus far), and I've reverted the edit again because it has NPOV issues and the editor refuses to actually justify the content, simply saying that it's actually required for the article to be neutral (just the opposite is true based on my understanding of NPOV and OR). Some of Deepavali 2014's other edits to unrelated articles demonstrates they don't have a clear understanding of what NPOV actually means. I also discovered when getting the links for this post that this user already was reverted once by another editor before me for the same edit, see.

"Bias" doesn't mean every single viewpoint has to be represented. In fact, some viewpoints shouldn't be represented on Wikipedia at all, because (for example) they're original research. Other viewpoints shouldn't be included because they cannot be verified and no reliable source is provided. Deepavali did provide a possible source for the edit, but just because someone said something doesn't mean we automatically include it in an article on that subject. If we do, we must be careful not to give undue weight to any particular POV. This means that minority viewpoints should generally be represented as such, and not given the same amount of attention as majority POVs. The pages I've linked to explain this better and in more detail.

Deepavali, please don't revert my edit again or put the content back into the article until it's been discussed here. Two independent editors reverted the content for justified reasons that it violated policy - let's not have an edit war. Will you please read the content of the links I placed on your talk page in my original message? Let's work together to improve Wikipedia. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing
It is anti wikipedia to push a biased view as LibertyOrDeath is doing. She wants to say the oil spill was bad and remove citations that the clean up was world class. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Both views should be covered. I am neutral. Wikipedia is not a vote. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is nobody loves oil spills but the mayor wants a coast guard station to not be closed and reopened which is why he said a very small spill was big. In comparison, the spill was cleaned up very quickly compared to the Exxon Valdez in Alaska which took years not half a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepavali 2014 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Deepavali, your response to me and your actions are not constructive.


 * "Wikipedia is not a vote." I agree, Wikipedia is not a vote. When there is a dispute about something on Wikipedia, a resolution is generally reached through consensus.  I tried to have a discussion with you and work together to find a way to include in the article the POV you wanted to add.  I've been polite and courteous to you, and explained my specific concerns regarding your edits - my issue was the content not being neutral and the various things I described above.


 * You've ignored essentially everything I've said. I asked you some questions to open a discussion, and I pointed out specific issues with the content, but instead of addressing those issues, you simply you re-reverted yet again, repeated your personal opinion that without including this particular information the article is somehow biased, brought up something irrelevant ("In comparison, the spill was cleaned up very quickly compared to the Exxon Valdez in Alaska which took years not half a week."), and then turned to personal attacks.  I won't respond to such attacks, or talk about what your unnecessary assumptions about my gender (something which I have never disclosed on Wikipedia) reveal about you.


 * However, I feel it's important I make clear that this

"'It is anti wikipedia to push a biased view as LibertyOrDeath is doing. She wants to say the oil spill was bad and remove citations that the clean up was world class.'"
 * is not true or accurate. So, just so we're all on the same page:
 * I never said anything about my personal opinions regarding the event the article describes, and I never said or implied I wanted the article to only say "the oil spill was bad". In fact, I didn't even realize this was a recent event when I initially undid your edit, and I don't live in Canada so hadn't even heard about it at that time.  I have no desire to alter this article so that only negative perceptions of the oil spill are included, unless doing otherwise would violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, etc.  Wikipedia is not about personal opinions, and hence in this context I don't care either way about the oil spill, I care about making sure articles are neutral and verifiable.  Also, I didn't "remove citations that the clean up was world class", I removed content (the citation used for that content was of course removed along with it.)


 * You reverted a revert for the third time (inserting the same content for the 4th time) and my concerns that you didn't address remain the same, so there's nothing else I can really say in response. So instead I've done my best to just adjust the content you added to at least meet the basic criteria for following NPOV and related policies and guidelines, I've expanded the article, given context for the stuff about the coast guard and the beach testing, provided additional refs, and I kept the quote you were so intent on including - with attribution since that's the only way to make such a statement in a Wiki article (though I'm not sure if I formatted it correctly as it's my first attempt at doing that, so hopefully someone with experience will fix it if there's an issue). Hopefully we can move on from this now and go back to trying to improve other articles on WP. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

oil spill coverage is no longer shockingly biased, which is good for wikipedia
This is good for wikipedia.

As far as the other comments by LibertyOrDeath,

1. She admits not knowing the oil spill was recent and not being from Canada. This is probably the reason for bias. The original version simply said there was an oil spill and the mayor was critical of the response...end of paragraph. Foreigners wouldn't know that the mayor is in a political fight with the federal government and purposely criticizes every little thing out of habit. He is trying to get a closed coast guard station reopened so the oil spill is a big excuse. There are citations linking the desire to blame the closing of the coast guard station on the oil spill clean up. The truth is probably that the oil spill was very small and the coast guard station would have done nothing. The mayor is also mad because if the coast guard station is closed he wants the money coming from selling the land for homes, not the federal government, who owns the land. Did Liberty know this....no. That is why we should not allow Wikipedia to be the stooge and mouthpiece of a politician.

Also, as far as she, I didn't know Liberty was female but, out of respect and the American program of Affirmative Action, I tend to address everyone as she. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)