This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was to not remove POV statements from "Behind the scenes" sections.

Do we really need the POV statements in the behind the scenes sections of Grand Army of the Republic and Fandalorian articles or any articles in the future? Is it encyclopedic in nature to keep these opposing views in the article? As suggested before by one of the contributors, Fandalorian doesnt really qualify as its own article and the GAR numbers has been confirmed as canon by LFL recently. --Razzy1319 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

VoteEdit

To purgeEdit

1. Razzy1319 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to purgeEdit

1. Kuralyov 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. RMF 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Lord Hydronium 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. --Rudy 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Darth Kevinmhk 12:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• As this is an encylopedia, all sides must be shown, and to purge all disstenting views would be POV in itself, as is policy here. Also it's no surprise that the one who suggested this is of course a Fandalorian himself. Why is it that those who are supposedly such honorable warriors are so unable to handle criticism? Kuralyov 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny that one who hasnt identified himself as a Fandalorian and hasnt been called such in any manner, is labeled by a biased Mod who expects all who are fans of Mandalorians to be so self-involved in fantasies. So much for a civil argument here. And encyclopedia is a collection of facts not the facts interpretted by sides. --Razzy1319 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The comment on you being a Fandalorian was uncalled for, to be sure. I think, however, that given that the concept 'Fandalorian' seems to exists out there in the SW-fan communities, it does warrant an entry in this encyclopaedia. KEJ 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Encyclopedias are more than just a collection of facts – for a drastic example, view this link [1]. As you see, they don't avoid a touchy topic; rather, they present both sides. RMF 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think POV content should be allowed if it is relevant and its source clearly cited. I cringe every time I read, "many fans think..." in an article because it will usually just mean, "my buddies and I think..." --Rudy 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• PoV in the main article will be bad, but PoV in BTS should be fine. The whole SSD Continulity issue article has a large collection of different PoVs from Star Wars fans. Suitable PoVs/reactions of the majority and/or different parties should be allowed. Darth Kevinmhk 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Rudy. I do come across some articles that just contain POV all over, which I understand is a bit allowed in wikias, but even for a wikia, too much. *shakes head* Anyway, for articles on controversial issues, I know it as presenting both sides of the spectrum equally as they can, as RMF has pointed out. —Mirlen 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.