ZimZalaBim, first you tried to merge this page into the Google article because it "doesn't need to be its own article," then you tried to tried to delete this article, and now you're trying to delete specific information supported by WP:Reliable sources and replace it with equivocating language in the name of NPOV, without adding any sources to support your changes and declining to seek consensus for your changes here on the talk page. This is not in the service of Wikipedia. إيان (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. If this article is to exist, it should not simply be a mouthpiece for those criticizing the project. We need to remain neutral, even if their words are not. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, does anyone else think this wholesale revert of my attempts to make the article more POV was inappropriate? Perhaps @Gidonb has an opinion? --ZimZalaBim talk 13:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a user who hasn't been WP:CANVASSed, who hasn't also actively tried to delete this article, and who is uninvolved would have an opinion. إيان (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You really need to assume good faith. Trying to ensure an article is neutral is all I'm trying to accomplish here. Please be cautious of our WP:POV policy. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not good faith editing to try to reinstate changes for which you do not have WP:Consensus while there is an ongoing discussion that you are participating in regarding the matter on the talk page: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Your suggested changes are not in the service of NPOV; they are deleting and ambiguating specific, sourced, and attributed information.
- Please discuss and support the specific changes you want to make and allow for consensus to be built. إيان (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant to only remove the Democracy Now citation, as WP:RSP notes it isn't widely considered a reliable source. I did not mean to revert everythying else (even though I don't agree with it). That was my editing error. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And all my previous edits have edit summaries that describe my attempt to create more neutral tones and adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. You haven't provided any policy-based reason for the wholesale revert of each of those changes. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a series of edits to ensure this article follows WP:NPOV, but they've all been undone without any specific argument as to why. These include:
- This edit noting we don't need to cut/paste claims made by an opinion piece (especially when their language has POV)
- This edit that removed the POV use of "illegal" when we can be neutral and let the linked article address the controversy surrounding the occupation
- This edit that properly notes that the rebuke and condemnation isn't universal (which is implied without the modifier)
- These edits that simplified the criticism from one employee without giving it undue coverage
- And I note above that I erred with this edit that was meant to only remove the insertion of a Democracy Now citation (generally unreliable). My edit summary notes this, and I didn't mean to revert two edits.
I'd like to understand how these are controversial edits and what the argument is for reverting them. We need to ensure this article isn't just POV-pushing. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- all of your edits are extremely controversial as of todays date 10 Mar,2024 MangoNot (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should include a section. On the controversy and protest, and the Google engineers leaving the company due to Google involvement with this project. 45.44.57.43 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree with you, a wikipedia page should include everything about the subject, we jsut need the consensus with us on this one. MangoNot (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, it is imperative that the content is reliable and free from speculation. Orenelma (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If by 'devoid of any political biases' you mean representing with due balance, what independent published reliable sources have to say on the subject then yes, that is what we aim for, per Wikipedia policy. As for speculation, if such sources engage in it, our article may very well note that such speculation exists, again per policy. Beyond that, we are under no obligation to take into consideration what any particular individual considers 'political biases', or what they personally consider 'imperative'. That isn't how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it sounds like "the manhattan project has 4 project phases: designing something, gathering materials for something, assembling something and using something " -- lots of words that don't say much. Tonymetz 💬 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual quote from Google in the link is that the project is "not directed at highly sensitive or classified military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services"
This is not the same as stating that Project Nimbus does not deal with classified information. There are actually several ways to interpret Google's statement and Google has not clarified.
I strongly suggest replacing the sentence with a direct quote from Google rather than interpreting it in a specific way. Carthradge4 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
