At 06:33 PM 3/15/03 -0800, Zoe wrote:
RK has gone on a tirade against the [[Chiropratic]]
article, and is trying
to make it out to be a dangerous religious cult (yes, he has said that). In
my attempts at trying to make his changes more NPOV, he's accusing me of
vandalism, the usual canard issued by anyone who disagrees with someone
else's changes.
Would someone with another eye please view both RK's and my changes and let
me know if I'm out of line? I never had a particular point of view on the
subject until seeing the attacks RK is making on it.
In my experience, the revert is the wrong tool to use with RK. It is
usually more effective to discuss the text on the talk pages and rework
his text.
On the other hand, I believe Zoe if she says that she has no particular
POV on chiropractic medicine because her comments and edits are consistent
with that. This is why I am troubled by the following comments made in
edit explanations and on the article talk page in response to Zoe:
* "imporant facts that were deleted because Zoe was embarassed by them"
* "Until Zoe learns NPOV"
* "lying about facts that you are uncomfortable with"
* "Stop pushing this pseudoscientific religious belief as some sort of
scientific fact."
It is my view that such personalizing remarks tend to hinder rather foster
progress toward a good NPOV article. But then, so does a revert.
Also, what is the Wikipedia policy on block-quoting large amounts of text
from an advocacy group?
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com
Synoptic Problem Home Page
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35