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.
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
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
Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
- "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."
RK reads this list, I think, so I'll just say this here: RK, comments of this type are uncollegial and not very helpful. It's really not a good idea for us to jump to conclusions of this type. Work with others in a spirit of goodwill and mutual respect.
--Jimbo