User talk:Dylius1

Welcome!
Hello, Dylius1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Heidi Alexander. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mattythewhite (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the helpful links and advice. Dylius1 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIAS
Hi, thank you for updating Wikipedia by stating which side Labour politicians supported in the 2016 leadership champaign.

However, some of the wording you use can come into conflict with WP:BIAS, such as the phrase "failed attempt". Please consider using a more neutral and less redundant phrasing, such as "He supported Owen Smith in the 2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election." Thank you! MB190417 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. The intent of my phrasing was to make the context of the 2016 leadership election clear, which in my opinion would not have been immediately obvious at a first read to someone not familiar with the background - as the election campaign was openly ran in an attempt to replace him I felt that this was a fair summary. However, I will not revert any edits if anyone rewords this in line with your recommendation. Dylius1 (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I intend to revise the wordings on each article which has used your wording personally when I have more time. On the question of context, the article is hyperlinked for further reading and "2016 Labour leadership election" provides sufficient context for the purposes of the article, i.e. an article on a Labour politician - though if you find supporting sources for the reasons the politician supported said candidate, that could be relevant to include in the article. For analogy, most pages I have seen say 'he supported Leave in the 2016 European Union referendum' - without going into further explanation about Brexit or even the result.


 * Furthermore, as I have explained, the particular wording you used has implicit bias - for example, "unsuccessful" is better than "failed". In future, you should look at published articles that have had a wide authorship and command community consensus to consider the language you use. For example, the relevant page, 2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election, uses the word "challenge", not "attempt".


 * Wikipedia seeks to provide an unbiased encyclopaedia. Its contents should never be weaponised to promote particular viewpoints, however subtly. Your interest in left-wing politics means you can make a valuable contribution in ensuring that topics relating to left-wing politics are covered in detail and that the relevant, notable contributions of left-wing politicians are documented. But asking others to revert your edits if they don't like the language you use isn't an excuse round the fact that you should refrain from using biased language, however implicit. MB190417  (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy to follow the guidelines to keep this in line with the rest of the wikipedia in the future - after reading the article on how certain words can be perceived (eg "failed"), and taking your point on context, I can now see why this has been flagged. However, I can assure you that my wording was intended to simply report the facts - eg it had widely been reported as a "failed coup" at the time (coup is obviously biased which is why I used attempt instead). The reason I stated that I was happy for others to revert the edit is that it took multiple hours to go through the list, which is not something I am able to keep doing. That being said, as a show of good faith I will try to change the wording of the edits I made when I have some spare time. Dylius1 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)