Talk:Clarion (programming language)

What's the POV issue here?

I've been inside and outside of Clarion for the last 17 years (I wrote the documentation from 1991-1998), and I see nothing here that's glaringly incorrect. So, what's the problem? Docmaster 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person who edited this page did so to praise the language, and this is the only contribution to Wikipedia the users ever did. This includes you, too. It's just blatant promotion of the language by people who work or have worked on it, and that sort of thing doesn't belong here. Besides, this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion, and not the language itself or any of its merits whatever those may be. Leave that for Clarion-related websites, thank you. — Kieff | Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but saying "nothing here that's glaringly incorrect" is far from praise and blatant promotion. There are negative points raised in the article, and these also fall into the category of "not glaringly incorrect."

As for your statement "this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion" -- that's exactly what I was doing by asking this question.

The article DOES present an accurate narrative of the history of the language's development, with failures discussed as well as what success it has had. Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be about presenting the facts. Just because you don't like those facts, don't attack them by raising the bugaboo of "blatant promotion." A features list of a commercial product in an article about that product cannot be construed to be other than a listing of facts about that product -- and certainly should not be labelled "blatant promotion." Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard, either.

So, again, what's the real beef here? Richard 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docmaster (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the beef is that this article reads like an ad for the product. Why is this subject notable? I'm not arguing for the article's deletion, but I think there needs to be more text about its notablity and less about how easy it is so easy to use. It also requires a ton of citation. It should be tagged for sourcing. Phyesalis 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

I've tagged this article for its complete lack of references. I'm going to delete some of the trivial info. Phyesalis 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]