| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New 7 Wonders of the World article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Company Name
SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK and HELP. Some commercial elements have Renamed the Origianl "New Open World Corporation" to "New Open World Foundation". And "For-Profit" to "Non-Profit". THey are reverting my corrections and instead I am being labelled as a VANDAL. PLEASE DO SOMETHING. Refer The Company's Website --Snjv 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As per the company website the name is New Open World Corporation "NOWC" and not New Open World Foundation "NOWF" that some reverting editors are claiming. The proof. Company Website NOWC terms and conditions. And I am being repeatedly labelled a Vandal when I fix it. PLEASE HELP, DO SOMETHING AND CALL MODERATORS
--Snjv 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Advert tag
The article reads like a brochure. This is an encyclopedia. There is no information about the history of the non-profit, who started it, how it is funded. There are no sources listed. What exactly is the relationship with the UN. etc.. this is a historical document, not an advertisement for the Jan 1 2007 announcement. -- Stbalbach 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Detailed information about the non-profit isn't really relevant to this article, but it might be collected into an article about the organization itself, if that's deemed important enough. As for the wording, I've taken a shot at rewriting much of the article (actually, mostly rearranging the information). I don't think it reads like an ad anymore (if it ever did), so I've removed the tag. - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- All you did was re-word what was there, it's still an advert. The problem is, this organization is (likely) a scam. They charge money for votes, and can drop the free votes at their discresion - thus wealthy patrons can ensure one of the seven wonders with enough money (all of which goes to NWOC). And is NWOC really a non-proft? I don't know. They present themselves as being "official" and connected to UNESCO, but I have seen no such evidence, other than what they self-proclaim - I have not been able to find a neutral source or anything that gives them neutral legitimacy. It's like a "Who's Who" service where you can "purchase" an entry in the Who's Who catalog. It would be like Wikipedia allowing vanity articles "for a small fee". The whole thing looks and smells bad. I've added a POV tag because none of the sources are neutral. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I Agree the entire article reads like an advertisement and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Virtual circuit 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- All you did was re-word what was there, it's still an advert. The problem is, this organization is (likely) a scam. They charge money for votes, and can drop the free votes at their discresion - thus wealthy patrons can ensure one of the seven wonders with enough money (all of which goes to NWOC). And is NWOC really a non-proft? I don't know. They present themselves as being "official" and connected to UNESCO, but I have seen no such evidence, other than what they self-proclaim - I have not been able to find a neutral source or anything that gives them neutral legitimacy. It's like a "Who's Who" service where you can "purchase" an entry in the Who's Who catalog. It would be like Wikipedia allowing vanity articles "for a small fee". The whole thing looks and smells bad. I've added a POV tag because none of the sources are neutral. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
UNESCO
I received this [edited] email from "WH-info" <wh-info@UNESCO.org>
Dear sir,
Thank you for your message. There is confusion but UNESCO does not participate to the seven wonders campaigns. Federico Mayor who was the last UNESCO DG is associated to the project but as an individual, not in the name of UNESCO.
Kind regards,
Souhila Aouak World Heritage Centre
Profit
There is no evidence that I have found anywhere that this is a for-profit operation. They strongly deny they are, claiming they give proceeds to cover running costs and for future restoration. If whoever is changing it back to say the organisation are for profit wants to keep on doing it, then please provide evidence. Otherwise, stop. 143.252.80.100 18:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Tom
- Can you provide links showing these claims? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here you go (http://www.new7wonders.com/fileadmin/resources/Press_clippings/Washington_Post_March14_2007_USA.pdf), same link as on the page. If you want the original article then I'll see if I can dig it out.
- This link proves nothing. Its a third party article--Snjv 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is no legitimate, technical question about the "For-Profit" status. The company is neither a foundation or organization. As the name suggests, its a "Non Public Corporation". Its upto the company to declare its NON-Profit status if applicable. As it has not declared that, Its very natural and sensible to consider it a "For-Profit" entity. THe deceptions stems from the use by company of public figures in personal capacity (X officials from UNESCO and other professionals). And aggressive marketing campaigns by commercial media to encourage paid voting. Hence its important to make that clear to the visitors. Cause if Wikipedia doesnt do that, WHO WILL ?--Snjv 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
21 or 22
The article states that the list has been narrowed down to 21, but the list in the article has 22 items.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) .
- Of course, this is Wikipedia, anyone can change the list to reflect what they want it to be. Also, don't count on the 21 being the correct 21. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The 22nd candidate should be Mamayev Kurgan in Volgograd. That thing is amazing. I saw it in person.
The 22nd candidate should be the Potala Palace in Lhasa. How can you leave it out of this list?!
close to spam
Please don't stick references to this for-profit project in articles about every place that it likes to be associated with. Lots of folks have developed new "wonders of the world" lists. - DavidWBrooks 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Being a finalists is not notable. I've further removed it from other articles. This article and organization has been a constant source of wikiturfing for months. -- Stbalbach 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"no connection to UNESCO
Do we really need to mention that in the introduction? It's worth mentioning because of some past confusion, but that seems overly prominent, borderline argumentative. - DavidWBrooks 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Considering how they promote themselves, yeah, I think it is needed. Plus the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article. -- Stbalbach 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- But it does seem very abrupt and argumentative, as if we're saying "don't be fooled by these charlatans!" Is there some context we can add that explains why this unusual statement is so prominent, without making the lede too long? Maybe something along the lines of: "Despite confusion about its history (((link to a cite that says it is UNESCO-sponsored))), it is not related to UNESCO" - DavidWBrooks 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's what it said originally basically. -- Stbalbach 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just incase people didn't realise I said the company who are deciding these new wonders cannot be taken as fact due to their voting system which, in the article says "organized by a Swiss-based, for-profit corporation called New Open World Corporation (NOWC). The selection is being made by free and paid votes, through telephone or online, with multiple votes allowed." To my this satatement makes New Open World's opinions seem inadmisable because it's for profit and allows multiple votes, maybe there should be a source added saying it. - 144.138.200.216
- That's a good reason for making sure those statements are included in the opening. We don't need to editorialize about it in the article, however. - DavidWBrooks 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Good morning america?
I'm removed a dab link at the top to Seven Wonders of the World which said it was a Good Morning America episode. ???? I must be missing something ... besdes, it's already linked in the first sentence of the article. - DavidWBrooks 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the GMA mention now at the bottom of the SWW page. I still think the sweeping disambig is fine; if reference to the GMA show is needed - I don't see why - it should be done of the disambiguation page, not at the top of this one. - DavidWBrooks 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- On further thought - I'm having a lovely conversation with myself - I put a reference to it in this article, as a way to help readers who come to this pointless goofy list, looking for the other pointless goofy list. - DavidWBrooks 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should only be about the Swiss organisation's "New Seven Wonders" list. Since the Swiss list is more well-known than the Good Morning America list and if you look at other interwiki articles on "New Seven Wonders" or "Seven Wonders", its about the Swiss organisation's list as well. --205.124.145.254 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This article is about the Swiss-based organization. -- Stbalbach 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but the returned dab is baffling - it sends you to Seven Wonders of the World but there's there's nothing about GMA until a couple of screens down. (And why does it just say GMA when USA Today was also involved?)
- I, for one, was stumped. A dab should send you to the article about the topic, not an article that happens to mention the topic in passing after a time. If we think this is necessary, a separate article on the USA Today/GMA list should be created - and I don't see why not, although I also don't know what to call it - and the dab sent to that article. The current setup will baffle people. Personally, I think the previous setup was better, but of course that's a judgment call.
- I've tried expanding the dab just a bit, although I hate long items, to see if it helps. - DavidWBrooks 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I see agreed. Added a direct link to the section. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Direct link is much better. - DavidWBrooks 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I see agreed. Added a direct link to the section. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
very interesting link by kralizec
very interesting your link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6434001 nearly 5 lines and advertising banner.Alexlot 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
- the link was not added by me, so you could hardly call it mine [1]
- regardless, it meets the external links guidelines
- National Public Radio is considered a reliable source
My presumption is that this claim (as well as the vandalism claim you left on my talk page [2]) is in response to the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alexlot case I brought against you. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have written about a specific external link YOU have posted, you answer about a issue that it is discussed in anhother page. Good job, but your link is a commercial site because it contain advertising banner!!! After festivity i will write something in problematic administrators pages (if you are an administrator).Alexlot 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) please don't cry!!!i have only written "who is the vandal". you have poster a external link with 4 lines e some advertising banner, against the wiki policy. I have posted a external link that it has been cancels 4 March without any reason after several weeks in "seven wonders" voice, weeks during which it was not vandalism. So not to make the victim.Alexlot 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Your English is significantly better than my Italian, but unfortunately I do not follow what you are trying to say. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I've been blocked for 2 days because kralized accused me to spamming. i block my nickname by myself for 7 days to protest agains kralizec. he calls me vandal while he introduce link to commercial site.Alexlot 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In Italiano: sono stato bloccato per due giorni perchè accusato di spamming da kralizec. Per protesta mi autosospendo per 7 giorni perchè kralizec mi accusa di vandalismo e allo stesso tempo introduce link a siti commerciali, nonostante ciò sia vietato dal regolamento.Alexlot 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- You were not blocked for spam links; the message [3] on your talk page clearly shows you were blocked for sockpuppetry. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, please show us exactly what commercial link Kralizec! added to an article - I don't see one. We've both already told you - present the link here, the Seven Wonders of the World talk page, along with your justification and ask the community interested in this article to discuss. You seem unwilling to put your link up to community scrutiny.
- And stop putting words in Kralizec!'s and my mouths. Neither of us has ever called you a vandal, and your repeated claim that we did is getting annoying. We've both been more than kind in trying to assist you, but you don't want to hear any of it if it means you can't put your link in the article. That kind of attitude is counter-productive at best, and mostly just childish. If you're willing to work within (and make a sincere attempt to understand) community standards, I guarantee you'll find all the help you need here. Until then, I really don't know how to help you. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
ok stop war since I do not speak English I go to giving my contribution to the italian wikipedia, where I can make more than to add a link and to seem more interesting.
ps the link at which i referred is the second link (maybe second, maybe third)of new seven wonders, because the banner and the publicity on the radio (in the beginning). Alexlot 08:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Pyramids
According to the website, the Pyramids are no longer in contention with the other candidates to be one of the chosen wonders, according to the page on the site [4]. Should they be removed from the list? Morhange 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've put in a discussion about that, but the wording will probably have to be tweaked. - DavidWBrooks 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal Bias
The bottom paragraph of the "criticism" section sounds like personal bias on the part of the author to me (although I don't entirely disagree with it). Maybe that should be edited.
24.247.10.212 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Eldon K., June 15, 2007
- Agreed - it's gone. - DavidWBrooks 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Too Silly
Having seen both the Sydney Opera house, St Peters in Rome, the Statue of Liberty and the Hagia Sophia church in Istanbul, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that St Peters is easily the most impressive. You could put the Sophia church in one tiny corner of the St Peters complex. Yet St Peters is not even on the list. Neither is the Palace in the Forbidden City. I also think the Empire State building is more of a landmark than the Statue of Liberty in New York. Wallie 10:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The 21 candidates were chosen, from among a first selection of 77 sites, by an "expert panel" consisting of renowned architects. As far as there is no consensual definition for a "wonder", their choices can easily be criticized (as can be any choice of this kind, from the Academy Awards to the (Time magazine's)Person of the Year).
The list of the 7 wonders of the ancient world could also be criticized : after all, the wonders were also chosen to reflect the extent of Alexander the Great's territory, and not only based on the sites'technical and artistic qualities.
Certainly, the size of the sites, or their "impressiveness" (a subjective criterium) were not the only criteria. For instance, the panel tried to select candidates from each continent (that's certainly why the Sydney Opera house was chosen, being the most well-known architectural site in Oceania). --Jeremie 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Promotional Editing
Everybody please keep a close watch on the criticism/contenders page where the mischiefs are being made. It appears that some of the editors are adding or removing information either to promote the concept as a whole or to promote their favorite wonder. Both acts are unfortunate.
Its agreed that the company behind it is a for-profit company and it is also agreed that the company charges for extra votes and shares vote revenues with media companies. That makes it obvious that the voting concept/process is non-scientific and commercial.
Here are few references from UNESCO, WIKIPEDIA, N7W and other sources.
UNESCO press release
N7W Business opportunities page
Scam to make millions
Wikipedia news
Hype watch
--Snjv 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article already, I think, makes it very clear that paid votes are accepted, that the results are not scientific or binding, that UNESCO or the UN has no role in the process, and that the corporation sells broadcast rights and merchandise. So it points out, often in the very first paragraph, all the limitations that you're concerned about.
- The sources given above don't say much - the "trak.in" site is a complaint with no evidence, as is the "gridskipper.com" site (its big point is that that text messages cost money to send!) The UNESCO research is already linked the article and referenced, and the other item links back to this page.
- The legitimate question that remains is the "profit" status of the operators, which seems murky, since there is new7wonders and also the New Open World ("corporation" or "foundation"?) - DavidWBrooks 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Trak.in and grigskipper.com do not carry a public opinion. Thats why they are mentioned in the discussion page and not on the article itself. As for the GridSkipper mention of Paid SMS, i can quote from India that the voting SMS costs Rs 6 while a normal SMS costs Rs 1 max. THe difference is shared by N7W and the telecome operator.
- Yes, the artical makes it clear about absence of scientific/public bindings. It also makes clear that corporation sells rights, merchandise and votes. And thats what a significant section of public and wikipedia editors are criticizing. Hence the mention on the "Criticism" section.
- There is no legitimate, technical question about the "For-Profit" status. The company is neither a foundation or organization. As the name suggests, its a "Non Public Corporation". Its upto the company to declare its NON-Profit status if applicable. As it has not declared that, Its very natural and sensible to consider it a "For-Profit" entity. THe deceptions stems from the use by company of public figures in personal capacity (X officials from UNESCO and other professionals). And aggressive marketing campaigns by commercial media to encourage paid voting. Hence its important to make that clear to the visitors. Cause if Wikipedia doesnt do that, WHO WILL ?
--Snjv 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It says the following in the very first paragraph - doesn't that make the situation very clear?
- The selection is being made by free and paid votes, through telephone or online. The first vote is free to registered members and additional votes may be purchased through a payment to NOWF. In addition to the sale of votes, NOWF relies on private donations, the sale of merchandise such as shirts and cups, and revenue from selling broadcasting rights. Profits are split between covering running costs and funding future restoration.