Talk:Great Southern War
From eRepublik Official Wiki
Tags
The introduction parts (and whole article in general) has no sources and/or the wording is biased/story like. My overall feeling after reading the page: nice story, but not encyclopedic. --Belea2008 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aeros wrote it, not me - he always writes like that. You have a point though, it will need toning down a bit. Belea - can you show me how to put in references, or where to find where to go (Ive never learnt) --
Timeoin| Say G'Day to Timeoin 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- What about the Battle's Fought section? Thats based 100% off the Battles/War pages. Surely that isnt being disputed as well? :P
- That is Aeros's writing style and he wrote the page. It doesn't have sources and it is biased but there's no need to dispute the channers PTO attempts on Venezuela, S. Africa, Australia, Thailand and Philippines. Can I go get sources for those? No of course not that was months ago. The channers have been around for a while, there's no disputing that. They only got hold of Venezuela, and the whole reason for Brazil's occupation of them was to protect against the channers.
Auk Rest 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- There IS evidence that there has been an attempted PTO of Australia via the senate, and references can be seen by the half-dozen attempts to move the treasury to the Reserved Bank of Australia. Other than that, references are hard to come by for these circumstances. I dont understand how to make this page unbiased. I believed that it was accepted knowledge that the so-called Channers from Harvad University were behind these attacks. References can also be seen in South Africa - they have renamed their party as Harvad University (See the South African Congress page).-- Timeoin| Say G'Day to Timeoin 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree. The channers have attempted to hit Australia and did hit S. Africa, no denying that. Sorry if my post didn't sound like it. Auk Rest 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I honestly dont know how to make that sound Neutral - since they DID do that stuff. :) -- Timeoin| Say G'Day to Timeoin 10:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I honestly dont know how to make that sound Neutral - since they DID do that stuff. :) --
- I completely agree. The channers have attempted to hit Australia and did hit S. Africa, no denying that. Sorry if my post didn't sound like it.
- There IS evidence that there has been an attempted PTO of Australia via the senate, and references can be seen by the half-dozen attempts to move the treasury to the Reserved Bank of Australia. Other than that, references are hard to come by for these circumstances. I dont understand how to make this page unbiased. I believed that it was accepted knowledge that the so-called Channers from Harvad University were behind these attacks. References can also be seen in South Africa - they have renamed their party as Harvad University (See the South African Congress page).--
- That is Aeros's writing style and he wrote the page. It doesn't have sources and it is biased but there's no need to dispute the channers PTO attempts on Venezuela, S. Africa, Australia, Thailand and Philippines. Can I go get sources for those? No of course not that was months ago. The channers have been around for a while, there's no disputing that. They only got hold of Venezuela, and the whole reason for Brazil's occupation of them was to protect against the channers.
- What about the Battle's Fought section? Thats based 100% off the Battles/War pages. Surely that isnt being disputed as well? :P
- Um - any ideas, anyone? I'm all out. (Probably because, being Australian, im kinda biased here) -- Timeoin|Say G'Day 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, resolved the part with the neutrality (the old part is in quote) check it out! (McKayRO 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
