User talk:Cronos1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:34, 22 May 2012

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE

Replied on my talk page. Regards, Swarm^Talk 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about controversies

Careful, you wrote:

I care about the merits of scientific arguments.

But remember that it is not for us Wikipedians to evaluate the merits of these arguments. The only thing we're allowed to do is decide whether a particular view is marginal. If so, it doesn't get mentioned at all. If it does get mentioned, then we aren't allowed to speculate on whether it's correct or not.

We can report that one side in the dispute criticizes or condemns another side. But we should not imply that they are right to do so. That would violate NPOV.

I know it can be annoying to see an article show the "other side" from what you believe in a positive light; anything other than outright condemnation or dismissal looks positive. But the goal of NPOV is not to find a middle ground or even to be "objective". Rather, the goal is an article which each side in the dispute can look at and agree that neither side is given any favoritism, and that both sides are described accurately.

Oh, and in case you don't know what I'm talking about, I refer to Silent Spring and Rachel Carson. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Replied on my talk page. Regards, [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><b>Swarm</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
+==Writing about controversies==
+Careful, you wrote:
+*  I care about the merits of scientific arguments.
+But remember that it is not for us Wikipedians to evaluate the merits of these arguments. The only thing we're allowed to do is decide whether a particular view is marginal. If so, it doesn't get mentioned at all. If it does get mentioned, then we aren't allowed to speculate on whether it's correct or not.
+We can report that one side in the dispute criticizes or condemns another side. But we should not imply that they are right to do so. That would violate NPOV.
+I know it can be annoying to see an article show the "other side" from what you believe in a positive light; anything other than outright condemnation or dismissal looks positive. But the goal of NPOV is not to find a middle ground or even to be "objective". Rather, the goal is an article which each side in the dispute can look at and agree that neither side is given any favoritism, and that both sides are described accurately.
+Oh, and in case you don't know what I'm talking about, I refer to [[Silent Spring]] and [[Rachel Carson]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)