Talk:Aenopia–Vishwamitra relations

Biased

@Oritsu.me: How so? Please explain your reasoning. ★ Luna ♥︎ (talk | edits) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

^^^ - I too would like to know the reasoning behind the tag. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 22:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oritsu.me, if you do not mind, this article is currently a good article nominee, and is unable to proceed as the bias tag makes the article fail criteria four and possibly criteria three. If you could explain your reasoning for the tag than the relevant changes can be able to be made in order for this article to possibly achieve GA status. Alternatively, you can voice your concerns of bias at this article's entry on the good article nominations page so that other reviewers may see them as well before voting. ★ Luna ♥︎ (talk | edits) 22:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the article is very Aenopia supporting and one that makes Vishwamitra look bad. The collapse of relations part is entirely biased as it makes Vishwamitra faulty at a time when it was a failure of the diplomatic mechanism. There is absolutely nowhere that mentions that Aenopian government maintained no contact with Vishwamitra since October 2021 and that lead to be one of the reasons for the fall of the relations. I had made certain edits to that portion of the article but it were removed by Logan to present their nation as crystal clear and out of any drama. Not only upto that, the article clearly discusses about a person who has been trying to build up his reputation after his fall due to certain things he did. Oritsu.me (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe it looks alright now. ★ Luna ♥︎ (talk | edits) 03:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that I removed the information to present Aenopia as "crystal clear" is untrue at best. The added information was removed based on comments made when the article was proposed for GA status which stated that former statement didn't make much sense. Instead of amending it, I removed them for convenience. In addition, the latter statement was unverifiable, so was removed instead of being left with the {{citation needed}} template. If it can be referenced, then I see no reason why it cannot be included. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)