Talk:Taubman Sucks

External links

The taubman sucks link to the website detailing a legal griveance should be removed pursuant to this disucssion: Talk:Cybersquatting#Link to TaubmanSucks site?. The rationale for removal in Cybersquatting transfers to this article as well. A website that draws up the actual briefs or court decision would be acceptable. But, a detailed rant on some legal action should be removed pursuant to WP:LINKSTOAVOID(listed in the talk page of the other article) and WP:COI("Legal antagonists If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.") EECavazos (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the quotation relates to material that's actually included in a Wikipedia article, not to material in a website referenced by a link in a Wikipedia article, and thus does not appear to be relevant to the point you're trying to make. (And the Taubman Sucks case is hardly "an active case-in-progress.") I'll refrain from restoring the link you deleted because I do understand that COI renders me a less-than-impartial judge of whether a link to my website would be properly included in the article. But I don't understand why YOU are not bothered by COI concerns about removing a link to a site that's so critical of lawyers. HMishkoff (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites that are critical of lawyers do not create a conflict of interest with people who are lawyers because they are not personal to the individual person, it is not a religion or ethnicity or ideology. It is an career. The website is not critical of me, the person. Therefore, it is of little "interest" to me, personally. Everyone is critical of lawyers. Lawyers are critical of lawyers. No one cares that you're critical of lawyers. EECavazos (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely buy that argument, counselor -- but, now that I've calmed down, I appreciate your willingness to discuss it calmly. HMishkoff (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the link to ALL the websites related to Taubman Sucks are relevant, i'm just talkig about the links. On another issue, the information on the article should properly address the facts on the creation of the case, not limited to the original website that iniciated the suit, the complaint websites and the video. The video was a direct outcome of the complaint website(s) and the complaint website(s) is a direct outcome of the suit over the original website and alleged trademark and copyright infringements.

The power of having the information "at hand" and making it available is what makes wikipedia great, i can spend hours crawling all the information at hand and DECIDE when i want to jump to the more "biased" relams of the internet. The idea of having the power to jump to the information as an external link is to avoid COI "in" (INSIDE) the article, but still letting the readers make their own decisions of what they want to see, therefore preserving their freedom. By not letting them weigh any and all the information available known so far, the article is in itself biased.

The article is biased by telling the readers that they CAN'T see information outside wikipedia. Therefore even links to wikipedia articles about Taubman should be removed... How can you detect errors in an article if you can't access the outside world? if we follow the line of thought of EECavazos we should start deleting progressively all the links on wikipedia: 1) the links to an article by being consequence of an action. 2) the links to an article by being the reason of the consequence. 3) the links to an article by being the raeson to the reason of the consequence, etc.

What EECavazos is saying is that to be perfectly unbiased, we should remove all the information off the internet (and from our brains). Which is not sad except for the fact that thinking so little about human beings, in the sense of them not being able to make a fair judgement impairs them from at least viewing the information, is a little insulting. In short, to be unbiased wikipedia needs to be endemic, and carrying all the errors to next articles. Having said that, i don't think HMishkoff should be able to modify it based on COI, but the links to any information related should be there and the choice of clicking them should reside in the reader, by being the reader the purpose of the article, not on the editor who is not the "ultimate source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisdanielmesa (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Award Winning"

Fronticla: I disagree with your edit that removed "award winning" from the intro. You say it's POV, but that's clearly incorrect, either something won an award or it did not, it's a statement of fact, not opinion. Your contention that "everyone notable wins awards" is so obviously false that it just sounds like petulance on your part. And I reviewed your reference to the INTRO section and found nothing to support your edit. A quick review of your personal Talk page reveals that you're going around Wikipedia and removing this phrase from every article you find, for no good reason except perhaps that you're frustrated that you haven't won any awards. :) I'm not going to revert your edit because I don't want to start an edit war, but I wanted to leave this note as evidence in case someone does decide to pursue an administrative remedy against your capricious actions in the future. HMishkoff (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)