Talk:New 7 Wonders of the World

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 article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

---

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 this is a historical document, not an advertisement for the Jan 1 2007 announcement.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes Stbalbach, I totally agree. Not just the article but the whole campaign is deceptive.--Snjv 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

198.3.8.1 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Can you provide links showing these claims? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 says absolutely nothing. Its a third party article which doesnt even mention the company name--Snjv 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The link says "The idea for the campaign came from Swiss Canadian filmmaker Bernard Weber, who, according to the group's website (new7wonders.com), formed the nonprofit foundation in Zurich in 2001 "to protect humankind's heritage across the globe" and alert people "to the destruction of nature and the decay of our man-made heritage."" They make clear that they are governed by the same rules as the IOC and the Red Cross www.new7wonders.com/fileadmin/resources/Press_releases/0706-new7wonders-and-unesco.pdf ). Now they may be lying, but you need to show me how. Merely saying they are a corporation is not enough - since they expressly deny making profit. A corporation can just be a way of giving an organisation a legal identity - it does not imply profit. Either respond to these points with contradictory information, or I will revert the page in 24 hours. 143.252.80.100 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Tom[reply]

Hi Tom, please refer my reply in the "Company Name" section. N7WF is not the same financial entity as NOWC. N7WF has expressed aim of non-profit while NOWC has expressed aim of making profit. --Snjv 09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add "for-profit" in the first para (I wont because i need consensus). The public needs to know the truth. Please check the bottom topics "company name" and "Is it a scam" and take appropriate action to inform the people. --Snjv 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's what it said originally basically. -- Stbalbach 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. This article is about the Swiss-based organization. -- Stbalbach 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok I see agreed. Added a direct link to the section. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link is much better. - DavidWBrooks 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A few points:

1. the link was not added by me, so you could hardly call it mine [1]
2. regardless, it meets the external links guidelines
3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've put in a discussion about that, but the wording will probably have to be tweaked. - DavidWBrooks 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Agreed - it's gone. - DavidWBrooks 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

- DavidWBrooks 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. I made the editing to which you refer, Snjv, and it wasn't promotional. It was based upon the fact that they say they don't make a profit and you haven't contradicted that. But let's keep that discussion in the profit section, and let's refrain from questioning the motives of other editors - as per wikipedia terms of use.

Hi David, Sorry, if I was offensive. Please refer to my replies in the Profit and Company Name sections--Snjv 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not offensive at all. - DavidWBrooks 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, really i was too offensive, sorry again. And i apologise for putting my topic on the top, i am a first time user, will learn :D Please check the "company name" and "is it a scam" topics below for my latest scoop, should it go on the article page ?? --Snjv 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm reverting the page. And not through being a "commercial element". Please read my comments in the profit section, and please do not resort to slander. Being a corporation does not imply being profit making, and nowhere have you provided any proof that they are. Since they explicitly deny profit-making activities, the onus is on you to prove otherwise.143.252.80.100 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom[reply]

I will keep in the term corporation, although it strikes me that foundation is just as appropriate if they are non-profit making and also refer to themselves as a foundation (are the two mutually exclusive, does anyone here know? Do foundations require umbrella legal structures). But I will remove the reference to for-profit activities in 24 hours unless you provide proof. 143.252.80.100 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom[reply]

On second thoughts, let me declare my interest. I am a journalist for a major paper (who would certainly fit the wikipedia conditions for citing sources) who was tasked with writing an article about these guys a fortnight ago. My editor came from the perfectly natural position that there must be a scam in it. So did I. I spent a good period of time researching the guys looking to catch them out and could get nothing substantive on them, except that they seemed a bit naively idealistic about what their scheme could achieve. What they said, and what I couldn't contradict (I won't put it on the page as it is independent research) is that 50 per cent of all profits go to restoration projects. Some of the remainder goes on costs, and the rest goes on setting up planned future projects - seven wonders of nature, seven wonders of modern world etc. So either they are above board, or they are committing fraud. Prove the latter and you've got me a great story and I will be extremely grateful. Otherwise, I think we should put in, with the appropriate links, that they are non-profit.143.252.80.100 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tom[reply]

The Onus of declaring themselves non-profit lies on the company itself. And the company "New Open World Corporation" or NOWC has not done that in any of their communication including their website or press releases. Instead of requesting me to prove that they are for-profit please provide a link that claims that NOWC is non-profit. The confusion is created by the company's deceptive campaign and profiteering based voting methods.

info about NOWC info about N7WF

And also by floating a parallel foundation called "New7Wonders Foundation" or N7WF. I agree that this foundation (atleast in the name) has an expressed aim of "aim of documenting, maintaining, restoring and reconstructing world heritage". Though N7WF have no legal stature to do that on any of the sites, as all the contesting sites are covered under UNESCO's world heritage program. The projects undertaken by N7WF are purely tiny token projects. No detailed information has been provided on the list of those projects. As per a highly publicized news one such project was creation of a 3D model of Bamian Buddhas. Any one with a insight with digital studios, knows how quick and cheap it can be. N7WF has no website or detailed information. And shares the same website with NOWC. Maybe the same premises and staff but definitely not the revenues. All the financial dealings happen in the name of NOWC as per the company's website and no mention of N7WF occurs when the company talks about the business. And NOWC has no expressed aim whatsoever about passing the money to N7WF. Firstly why two different entities if the purpose is same ?? Maybe because one of them is generating goodwill for the other to generate money. The website claims that the Foundation is behind the Corporation which appears as a joke, cause looking at the big picture, its the reverse case.

--Snjv 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the company website and press releases is full of ambiguities On terms and conditions they call themselves "New Open World Corporation" but on the page footer they call themselves "NewOpenWorld Foundation". When they mention about goodwill and restoration work (?) they use the name of entity as "New7Wonders Foundation". While this is what "New Open World Corporation" stands for. Business Opportunities All things are indicating its a HUGE SCAM my dear friends. --Snjv 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First we need a little bit into the background of the individual behind the campaign. Thats Mr Bernard Weber who is being touted as a renowned businessman. But is he, here is a look at his cv from N7W site, and it shows no business venture what so ever. He is a curator, amateur pilot and filmaker. Bernard Weber CV. A quick look at one of the cases against him has shocking similarities with the current campaign. The case highlights attempt at creating a parallel unauthentic foundation in the name of a great architect. But the original foundation (where he once worked as a curator) fought hard and was deemed correct by the arbitration. Here is the link WIPO Case No. D2003-0251
The current scenario is similar but of a much gigantic proportion. And in this case the original organization that is UNESCO has hardly done anything to challenge it and inform the general public better. Other than on couple of occasions UNESCO mildly stating its stand UNESCO press release

The web is full of non commercial blogs that are questioning the campaign and deeming it a scam. Also please notice the visitor comments on these blogs.
Gopikrishnan on NewsVine
Trak.in
Gridskipper.com hypewatch
News 4, China
--Snjv 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]