Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cleanup tag, editorial

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi this article is too one sided and seems to be promoting a specific opinion against laundry balls. Thats against WP policy of course. It needs more neutrality and while some discussion of the pseudoscience aspects makes sense, the whole article should look not like that

Also, its much MUCH too long considering its just one big complaint against the things. If its going to be anywhere near this length it needs to have some positive or at least neutral viewpoints too, right now it doesn't. I will start giving it some NPOV later today but right now I have to go shovel some snow 208.100.172.164 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral point of view means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Reliable sources are overwhelmingly negative, and they make lots of criticism. They don't have almost nothing positive to say about laundry balls.

We should be careful about adding positive or neutral point of views only for the purpose of "balancing" an article. Articles are not 50% good / 50% bad. Articles don't have a minimum percentage of "positive" point views. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So, it has now been about 3 years since you started shoveling snow and no "neutral point of view" has been added to the article. As said by Enric, all opinions are not equally valid, all things are not equally valuable, and facts do not have to be balanced by adding false information.

It does not promote a specific opinion against laundry balls. There is no need to defend it in the face of the evidence. You are claiming that we should "balance" all articles based on people's opinions. Should the article about food include the side of people claiming that food is not necessary and they can just survive by ingesting sunlight? Should the article about earth include the claim that "some people think that earth is flat, so we can't really know, we must be really balanced and fair in giving every possible imaginary unproven opinion the same equal voice"? That would be incredibly irresponsible and stupid. 84.250.234.108 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)