Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Geographic Magazine's abuse of geographical names

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Geographic Magazine's abuse of geographical names

[edit]

National Geographic Magazine's abuse of geographical names was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

Wikipedia is not the place for editorials --Carnildo 07:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • This article should stay because it reflects a very actual and important fact.

--Mani1 07:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • It reflects a sem-literate rant, is what it does. Delete. --Calton 11:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant on a subject not deserving an entire article. Gamaliel 07:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gazpacho 07:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV material with an inherently POV title. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 07:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Inherently POV. --Polynova 07:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Note about recent actions of National Geographic should remain. It contains historical facts.

Pejman www.artistswithoutfrontiers.com/pakbarzadeh/

The above was posted by 213.217.39.18. It is the only edit under that IP address. --Carnildo 08:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article just reflects facts and only facts. Nothing POV about it. National geographic has made hostile political statements on its maps and has added the sentence "Occupied by ..." on parts of a country which is internationally and by all standards recognised as a legal part of that country. It has also altered several toponyms without a shame. Like me going and publish an atlas and give many places in England, Arabic names! Mentioning these facts is not POV, it is just mentioning the facts. Or is Wikipedia reserved just for mentioning the facts which are pleasant to the American ears?? --Mani1 14:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen, Mani1, it's not that we aren't sympathetic, but you need think about some things: 1) The title is highly inflammatory ("abuse") so very POV. I'm sure National Gepgraphic doesn't consider it abuse (though whether they call it a strange accident or they think their way is right is unknown to me), so obviously "abuse" is not an established fact, so the article can't be called that. 2) Mere facts (if they are facts instead of opinions) alone do not make something encyclopedia worthy. There has to be a broader context that these facts are brought up over. 3) Think about what's your main point here. That western scholars are biased against your country? Then perhaps there is an article somewhere discussing the sides of that issue that the facts fit better in. That there is dispute over place names? Use this as an example in an article discussing the issue. Are there other examples of what you are talking about? Cultural reactions? Lawsuits? Find out what the overall concern you want to discuss is, and then maybe that goes in an article about that. On the other hand, maybe there aren't enough examples of this kind of problem and it just doesn't rise to the level of a full article. Lots of facts on their own don't make the cut. DreamGuy 15:55, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Mani1, take a look at the Sea of Japan article for an example of how another such dispute has been discussed. Gazpacho 21:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV objection to the National Geographic Society. It's an essay. We're all sorry that the NGS is offending folks in Iran, but arguing about it is not encyclopedic. Geogre 14:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly POV rant by someone with an axe to grind. Not encyclopedic. Katefan0 15:30, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've tried to explain on the Talk:National Geographic Society, Wikipedia can mention the naming dispute between Iran and the National Geographic, but needs to treat the dispute according to NPOV. If you can simply lay out the facts of the dispute in a calm and neutral way -- who exactly accuses the Geographic of what and why, perhaps with some historical background, that would be fine. An external link to a site giving the Iranian position is fine. This article, however, is not encyclopedic. It is an angry rant, and therefore doesn't belong here in its present state. -- Infrogmation 16:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Do we have an article on the various standard practices for transliterating (&c) foreign names? I know there have been significant international differences in the past, some major changes, and a few "conceptual shifts" (it becoming more common to use local forms of the name, for example) - a discussion on the NGS issue would fit in very well there. I'm not the person to write it, though... Shimgray 18:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn't object to a "National Geographic naming controversy" article but both the title and article are hopelessly POV.
  • Delete if there is actually a controversy (which is not demonstrated in the article), that shoulc be included in the National Geographic article itself. Michael Ward 19:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rant doesn't even seem to be accurate--according to CIA world factbook, and others, the islands are indeed disputed, with the UAE having a fairly legitimate claim to them. Niteowlneils 19:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Will I offend Mani1 if I say DELETE in Arabic? —ExplorerCDT 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this should go anywhere, it should go under the Nat Geog article, not as a separate POV quasi-rant. BTW, I should point out that this is obviously part of an ongoing Iranian nationalist campaign against the use of the term "Arabian Gulf" - see Google News for more coverage. -- ChrisO 21:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; inherently POV. —tregoweth 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but we could use an article on Place name controversies, that would include this, Macedonia, East Sea/Sea of Japan, a million towns in western Poland... ---jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the reasons above. Move it to the user's user page if they really want to keep it. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 23:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Take a breath there, Big Boy, and give back some of those exclamation marks if you don't mind. Denni☯ 00:49, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 00:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. EventHorizon 02:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if for no other reason then for its use of four exclamation marks and the "?!" -- Paul Richter 08:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I like the idea above integrating the information (NPOV'ed) into Place name controversies, which would be an interesting article. Tempshill 22:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I suspect this of being the same guy who kept trying to mess with the Persian Gulf article a few months back. Tried to persuade us that England was called The Land. DJ Clayworth 06:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's also very recently tried to rename England as "Arabland", which is just bizarre... -- ChrisO 02:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete This article expresses a fact and gives good information. It should stay in this encyclopaedia.

--212.238.143.99 08:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it seems there is no way to make it NPOV or even totally verifiable. Once you delete all the opinions, ranting, and bad spelling, you have at best a couple of sentences that resemble fact. Perhaps a line or two regarding this can be added to National Geographic's article proper, but that's about it. Inky 01:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Most of the facts in this article are already in the National Geographic article (hopefully in an NPOV form right now) --Carnildo 05:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick Googling shows that there is an ongoing and widespread argument over the gulf's name, and it's not particular to National Geographic. iMeowbot 05:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if it were NPOV it is so location-specific that it should be dealt with in the articles for that location, and in conjunction with above comment about not peculiar to National Geographic, there's just nothing there. Gene Nygaard 00:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attempt to push a POV. jni 07:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Geographic_Magazine%27s_abuse_of_geographical_names&oldid=1191416598"