Talk:Conservancy Association

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservancy Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210072701/http://www.conservancy.org.hk:80/ to http://www.conservancy.org.hk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete

This article has no references to reliable sources. Delete it.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It does now. Quetzal1964 talk 07:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

We need to talk

@Citobun and HighKing: although this is not an edit war I think that continually reverting each other's deletes is verging on that type of behaviour. Can we discuss the issue and reach consensus? Quetzal1964 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC) talk

I'd already left this one and wasn't intending to take part further. I am not a content expert on this topic and I only arrived here after the AfD. But, seeing as we're here, in summary, this is what Citobun objects to in the edits I made:

• I rephrased the first sentence as the "and was" is superfluous
• I removed the phrase "It also seeks" as superfluous and "marketing-speak". It is also not referenced.
• I removed the sentence starting "The ogranization advocated" as it is puffery and self-referenced. Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing and is not a platform for advocacy.
• I rephrased the order of the starting sentence in "History". I have no idea why Robert N Rayne is being put front and centre as the founder with the list of the other founder trailing behind. I nominated Robert's article for deletion. It is an unnecessary detail that Robert became chairman and took part in a campaign in the 70s. This to me is puffery, plain and simple.
• I deleted references to the 1972 workshop and their opposition in the early 1970s to the construction on Lamma Island. Both are referenced by their own press releases and announcements. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy and articles should not contain unreferenced puffery such as what an organization says it stands for, or what an organization says it supported or opposed.
• I rationalised the "Major Works" under "Publications and other activities". Again, puffery to even list them as "Major works".
• I deleted the lists of "Presidents and chairman" because that serves no purpose in a WP article and is unnecessary detail and puffery.

You guys have edited the article and you're the content experts. I'm not. I whizzed through the article, made edits that I thought improved it both for content and style, reverted once because sometimes with edits this large, they're seen as passing vandalism and now I leave you guys to decide whether any of my points have merit. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because the rationale didn't make sense. i.e. to delete most of the history section, recently added by me, on grounds that it is puffery/promotion/supporting a cause – I don't have any connection to the group nor any interest in promoting their cause, and I object to a flippant implication that I have some kind of COI. I am not an expert on this subject either. I just did a search in the archives and wrote what is reflected in coverage from the time. The historical info isn't referenced to "their own press releases and announcements", but of press coverage of their activities in the South China Morning Post, a reliable secondary source.

An article on an advocacy group should describe what it stands for, just as an article on a politician should cover his/her political platform. I don't see how this is "puffery"... otherwise the article doesn't serve the function of explaining the subject at hand. Citobun (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I already said, I'll leave it to you guys to write the article. I'm not sure what a "flippant implication" actually is, but nowhere was there even a suggestion that COI was a factor and I did not make any statements that you were personally advocating, only that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and clearly, the text in this article breaches policy. I disagree with many of your assertions above. If you check the source of the "historical info", you will find that the sources are based completely on announcements made by the association and the articles are full of quotations and attributions - the press coverage in the South China Morning Post does not qualify as an intellectually independent secondary source as per WP:ORGIND. You say an advocacy group should describe what it stands for - I completely agree - a general description should be included (and it is). But I disagree that their various stances (support/oppose) on whatever issues of the day should be included (unless it received coverage from *independent* secondary sources). Also - why is Robert N Rayne being pushed front and centre? That is puffery. Also - what is the purpose of the various lists (chairpersons, etc)? That is also puffery. Those details are unnecessary.

I don't believe the article was worse after I edited and in fact had been improved. But I stress that you guys appear to be the content experts and I leave it to you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)