Talk:New Acropolis

The article as it currently stands promotes an overly positive view of the subject, when it should be more neutral Aspening (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Is borderline promotional. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to remind the [[User:Dereck Camacho] that wikipedia articles should be neutral, objective and verifiable. This article has a serious POV problem at this point, and it seems that said user has an agenda against the organization. There is a lot of independent research and handpicking of selected phrases taken out of context. It's ok to have legitimate criticism against the organization, but you are trying to present a very one-sided view. For example, if you choose to quote an article by Jorge Angel Livraga, then present his whole view, not just one quote from hundreds of articles. Please don't push your own agenda, let the readers make their own mind. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Giladsom your unfounded accusations can be considered a personal attack, which are against Wikipedia policies and I could report you. In any case, all the information I added has more than enough neutral, objective and verificable sources, problem is first you're never happy with any kind of critical information about the organization, you add templates requesting something and then get upset because that something was added for the templates you requested. You requested citations, I gave it, then you said the sources were "not enough" or biased, then I answer with sources from the organization itself that confirmed what the first sources said, then you said that was original research, then I added direct quotations to let the reader make his mind, and now you say is "handpicking selected phrases out of context". It seems that no mattar what I add if is critical of NA or makes it look in a bad light you find something differnet to say about, is almost like if you don't want this information to be public. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, my comment was not intended to be a personal attack, if it felt so, then I apologize. I do not have any problem with the criticism of organizations like New Acropolis, although I'm generally in favor of the work they do, I do believe it's important to display the criticism, so every person can make their own analysis. This is what Wikipedia is about. However, these criticisms should be impartial, to the point, and not based on the editor's personal research. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but from my side it seemed that your presentation of the criticism and the sources you relied on are based on a personal agenda or grudge against this specific organization. Are they? If not, I'll be happy to work together to make the page more balanced and less chaotic than it is right now. TruthisHigher 07:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs)

I was only answering to what you requested. You requested unbiased sources, when I use the organization itself's sources including their own secret handbook, you said they were original research, when I then use the direct quotes from the text you said they were out of context and handpicked. So, what should I do? You object any editions and when your request is granted you complain again. How do you define impartial sources? It seems that all sources that does not shows it in a good light are impartial for you. In any case, that's not what Wikipedia's policies say, I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources especially: Reliable sources may be non-neutral and Reliable sources are never neutral.

I have no particular feelings toward this organization, tho I do suspect is a cult I have never came across with it in my life. For what I read that Livraga himself wrote like the Manuel del Dirigente I really don't have the best opinion as I'm very liberal and anti-authoritarian, however that's not my motive. I wasn't the only one who notice that this article is too flatering. I can't say for sure if the organization is truly para-militar, but I can say for sure that most of Livraga's biography is fake and that NA had continue to spread such falsehood knowingly and that make me even more distrustful of it. But in any case, I accept your apologies. I suggest the section may be returned to a previous version without the long quotations but without the "original research" template either. How about that? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Dereck, I appreciate you willing to work with me, I consider myself a liberal as well, and I'm sure we probably have even more in common. The truth is I know some people in New Acropolis and it amuses me to link them to any para-military or far-right ideas. But, as you said, criticism should have its place in Wikipedia. I agree that sources don't have to be neutral, but I do think that the presentation of the editor should be as neutral and objective as possible. I also agree to what you suggested, but I would like to add a few more points. You built a section about structure and organization, which is great, but it seems to rely only on a certain partial document from the 70's, which was written by Jorge Livraga, but I don't think we can be sure it is still used, or that it is official today, it would be probably better described as an internal/official manual from 1976, written by Jorge Livraga. Organizations change a lot in 40 years. I would start the section with some lines from the current official view that you can probably find on the official website, in this way the people could see both the current official position and the indications of Livraga. This doesn't change the content of the document, but it puts it in context. Also about the last criticism you added about the professor who taught racist ideas in school, I read the article, and the professor himself says he visited New Acropolis 5 times in 10 years. That hardly makes him a member of the organization. Also, even if he was a member, I'm not sure that his personal activities necessarily represent the organization. The thing is that most English readers in Wikipedia will not be able to read the original in Spanish, and even if they can I'm not sure they'll even bother, so I think it's important to present the information as objectively as possible. What do you think about these arguments? Do they make sense to you so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I don't remember to ever read that the professor only visited NA five times in 10 years but I will remove the mention, howver I will kept the news as source for the accusation of cult which is something that the text says. I have no problem with specifying the year the Handbook was written and to describe the current structure, but I have no idea what is the current structure system of the organization, feel free to add it yourself. I will return the text of discordia to a previous version that was more neutral and had less quotes.

Now as a quid pro quo you should also review some of the extremely flattering or promitional content which was user Aspening's original worry when opening this thread. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for my late reply, thank you for being flexible and for making the changes. I will look into the structure. Would you mind pointing out what you think is promotional or too flattering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what Aspening mentions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Aims and Teachings sections do not represent a balanced view of the subject. Aims is largely based in information from the organization itself; I'd like to see some third party commentary on what the organization does. In other words, it's too reliant on primary sources, which can introduce bias. Teachings is too reliant on direct quotes, and most of those appear to portray a positive view of the subject. Reception and Criticism is also largely positive in tone; a lot of it is focused on refuting anti-New Acropolis viewpoints and talking about how great the organization is, with little mention of its critics. Aspening (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope my changes may please both sides as much as possible. I tried to be as neutral as possible. If that is the case then consider removing the labels of advert and NPOV if you wish. Greets. --TV Guy (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I will agree with the changes done, however I still think some parts are too promotional, however in order to avoid an endless edit warring I will consent to this version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you TV Guy, I appreciate your edit, it much clearer and organized now. However, I continued to edit the organization and structure section in accordance with the principles you presented in the Teachings section. I believe I didn't remove the essence of the information. I still think it's pretty biased against the organization, but I accept that in regard to existing organizations and living figures, Wikipedia will probably always have some bias, as all of us editors are human beings at the end of the day. It is unfortunate, but it is the reality. Thank you again and all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. However the situation is very difference in structure than in teachings. The problem in teachings was excess of quotations, not the case in structure which just presents detailed information which is ok. --TV Guy (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)