Talk:Nova (UK magazine)

A challenge to the message atop this article
A message dated 2017 claims: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." There is no such discussion on this virgin Talk page, so I am initiating this conversation now in 2019. Why does this message claim a dispute when none is visible?

In addition, one editor in particular has removed one of my additions by reasoning that it is "effusive" to say that Nova "created its own unique niche in the British consumer magazine market". Yet after 50 years during which Nova's reputation remains unsullied, and this proposition is embodied in the very reference book on which much of this entry is based, itself newly republished this month, I cannot see how my wording amounts to a Wiki thought crime. How otherwise might one acknowledge the magazine's originality and legacy, which in Nova's case was and is monumental. 217.155.200.241 (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Thought crime" is a bit overdramatic. WP:NPOV is one of the most important tenets of Wikipedia editing. Language in articles must be neutral, unbiased and "encyclopedic". I'm afraid that saying the magazine's "originality and legacy" was "monumental" is an opinion. If you want to say that a particular writer of a source material called Nova's legacy monumental, you can do that - you just need to word it in a way that makes it clear who said it and that it was their opinion (say, for example: "In the Reference Book of Magazines (2019), John Smith wrote that Nova 'created its own unique niche in the British consumer magazine market'"). You just can't phrase it as an encyclopedic fact when it is an opinion.


 * Likewise, I had to remove biased, superlative language that described editorial staff members in terms such as "the courageous editor", "the visionary art director", etc. I would guess it was this language that caused someone to put the message disputing the neutrality of the article on the top of the page.Lilipo25 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that the evaluations and opinions I included in the text were derived from the reference works already cited including the obit. It is a dull aspect of Wikipedia that in areas in which one has personal expertise the entries are very often lacking in insight or interest and Britannia still does the job far better. 217.155.200.241 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that you included "evaluations and opinions", but that you phrased those opinions as established fact instead of attributing them as particular people's opinions. Personal opinions must always be clearly phrased as such in any encyclopedia, including the Brittanica.


 * If you have "personal expertise" in the subject, I would suggest that you write an article on it and have it published in an acceptable journal or newspaper, and it can then be quoted in the Wikipedia article (although if your article states such things as "the magazine's legacy is monumental", it would still need to be phrased as the opinion of the article's author). I'm afraid that there is no reason for Wikipedia to take your anonymous IP account at your word that you are an expert on this topic and include your opinions in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article reads OK at present and the 'neutrality' warning message appears inappropriate. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)