|
:To say that it's more important than ever, because obviously, very many perfectly well-educated, extremely intelligent people take various sides on this issue. Why should you pretend otherwise in an article that is supposed to represent what "is known or believed" on the issue? That would make the article straightforwardly inaccurate. I think your view is actually one step away from censorship. --LMS Assert the status quo and ignore logic. Qualify the most logical positions as "according to x," present the least logical ones as "generally considered." That means you'll probably present most dissenters' arguments greatly qualified and show your bias towards the status quo--a bias that most people won't notice although they should. The resulting mediocre article will be "generally considered" something "fair" in a journalistic sense (journalism, in this case, being mere knee-jerk reporting, and not involving investigation or applications of logic). That's just my (admittedly biased) :-D opinion after rough treatment on the cannabis page. |
|
:To say that it's more important than ever, because obviously, very many perfectly well-educated, extremely intelligent people take various sides on this issue. Why should you pretend otherwise in an article that is supposed to represent what "is known or believed" on the issue? That would make the article straightforwardly inaccurate. I think your view is actually one step away from censorship. --LMS |
|
I'm confused. You can report in as much detail as you could possibly please about what various people believe. This means you can supply all the facts and arguments that lead you consider your position, whatever it is, to be so obviously correct. In the main article, to write from a neutral point of view, you do not need to use vague language. "Generally considered" is actually to be avoided precisely because it can be so easily abused by people with an agenda. Perhaps you haven't really practiced writing from the NeutralPointOfView enough, so that you confuse it with simply bad, vague writing of the sort that can be found in textbooks and newspapers. --LMS Right. And then after reporting in a precise and detailed manner what a class of people believe, another person who shall remain nameless can come along and relegate those comments to a /Talk? page because the comments aren't matched with equally detailed information from an illogical, although predominant, point of view. I refuse to accord respect to illogic; I don't consider catering to it "neutrality," I consider it foolishness. I would like to see you write up a text on the Holocaust using the neutral point of view. --KQ |
|
Evidence of increse ? Where ? --Taw I've only heard about decrese and no-effect so far. You can report in as much detail as you could possibly please about what various people believe. This means you can supply all the facts and arguments that lead you consider your position, whatever it is, to be so obviously correct. In the main article, to write from a neutral point of view, you do not need to use vague language. "Generally considered" is actually to be avoided precisely because it can be so easily abused by people with an agenda. Perhaps you haven't really practiced writing from the neutral point of view enough, so that you confuse it with simply bad, vague writing of the sort that can be found in textbooks and newspapers. --LMS |
|
What does "rating on the mob" mean? Disembowelling is a little precise, but not colloquial - the usual English term is "Drawing and quartering." And we've got to have "beheading," which is after all still practiced. (I just got a mention of Thomas More's head into his entry). |
|
What does "rating on the mob" mean? Disembowelling is a little precise, but not colloquial - the usual English term is "Drawing and quartering." And we've got to have "beheading," which is after all still practiced. (I just got a mention of Thomas More's head into his entry). |
|
Which leads to another potential topic, the history of the guillotine. Why yes, I think that -- that must be morbid curiosity. :-) |
|
Which leads to another potential topic, the history of the guillotine. Why yes, I think that -- that must be morbid curiosity. :-) |
|
"Rating on the mob" should probably be rendered "Ratting on the mob," and is a gratuitous attempt at humor in an otherwise (deadly!) serious article. Breaking the code of silence and reporting the activities of organized crime to law enforcement ooficials is a fairly sure way to end one's life. branteaton |
|
"Rating on the mob" should probably be rendered "Ratting on the mob," and is a gratuitous attempt at humor in an otherwise (deadly!) serious article. Breaking the code of silence and reporting the activities of organized crime to law enforcement ooficials is a fairly sure way to end one's life. branteaton |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)