Talk:The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.

POV
Should be deleted due to WP:POV as this does not have a neutral point of view.--128.135.230.120 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article does not have a neutral POV (clearly anti-Steiner) and needs rewriting. Particularly problematical was the "Reaction and Controversy" section, which was biased, inaccurate and poorly written - I have attempted to restructure/redress, in particular removing the sentence "Steiner...believes that the Jews are somehow to blame for their own persecution", which, as well as being original research/opinion, is a misrepresentation of the source, http://www.azure.org.il/download/magazine/1147az15_Sagiv.pdf by Assaf Sagiv - itself an anti-Steiner polemic which indirectly accuses the Jewish Steiner of anti-Semitism, surely discrediting it as a source of facts on Steiner. But more work / complete rewrite of other sections necessary perhaps further work on this one Beethoven74 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIES WP:RETAIN Godwin's Law
I have been reverted here by an editor who believes I am pro-Nazi. Despite the evidence indicating that this article passes WP:TIES (British publishing house, author is a resident of England who writes in British English) and WP:RETAIN (every edit I found in the history depicts British English spellings), it has been decided that I am too Nazi and too unregistered to have a valid opinion. I find this WP:CIVIL rudeness to be unwelcome and escalating needlessly. Please restore my tag of Use British English according to what is best for this article, per the guidelines in place. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not reached in edit summaries, and how much weight to give the opinions of various editors is subject to debate. In the case of the IP above, their other edits attempting to mitigate the evils of Hitler and Nazism indicate to me a POV bias which, in my estimation, makes them ineligible to be "the decider" of this issue. However, in looking at the very first version of the article, I note that it was written in British English (i.e. "rumours"), so, with the arguments presented above about first publication and residency of the author, my opinion is that it should be labelled as being in British English.  If there emerges a consensus otherwise, this can always be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of "attempting to mitigate the evils of Hitler and Nazism": this is what I wrote in my request: "Greetings! The following categories are currently unsupported and must be either removed from the article, or, per the provisions of WP:CATV." I'm not so clear on how removing navigation categories "mitigates evil" and I'm especially unsure on how my exhortation to write clearly about Hitler's evils and include citations to corroborate those evils would tend to "mitigate" them or expose my evil Nazi bias. Off-topic comment retracted. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not pertinent to the discussion of this article. If you post about it again, it will be deleted per WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * More to the point, how did this get through FAC tagged as Engvar2 but with "gotten" twice in the article? --John (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)