| content |
Contents |
Anthroposophy pages
Hi! I periodically go through the anthroposophy-related pages and copy edit them. I see that you have also been working on various pages. If you ever see anything that I changed that you felt could have been done differently or better, please let me know. I usually don't add much content but simply edit for clarity, grammar, etc. I also have been working on the Waldorf Ed. page for a long time, again mostly copy editing but also working on the discussion page to promote consensus. Thanks! Henitsirk 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have been focusing on getting a number of articles with proper references and promoting neutrality and objectivity in several articles, including Waldorf education. I also have worked to clean up articles in neuroscience. Many thanks for all your work! --EPadmirateur 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Odd Nerdrum
Very happy you fixed up the bibliography on Odd Nerdrum. I had intended to do so now or at least soon, after saving the bibliography in its present format on the talk pages, but I like referencing and bibliography work least of all, so delighted you've done it .... Whew! Thanks!(olive (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
- Glad to help. May I suggest using WorldCat for bibliographic references. It has a good search and shows all of the relevant information about the book. It's pretty easy to put a bibliographic reference together with it. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sheldrake
How's it going with the Sheldrake article? Haven't read through the talk page, but wondering what your perceptions are. Feel free to get in touch by email also if you wish. I'm unable to do much editing at this time, but I do watch Sheldrake, and would not want the article to degrade. Though it looks like there is some good new material. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the moral support! It's a real contest of wills and logical reasoning. I'm not the source of all of the good material: I'm just trying to keep all the good stuff there and keep it balanced. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- On the JSPR, they are peer-reviewed, and in that way the epitomy of a RS. They are also somewhat fringe, so articles in more mainstream sources are to be preferred, if you can get them. But if you had a general press article up against the JSPR, the JSPR should win, IMHO. Have little time. Will try and look later. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow, somebody HE REALLY GET EXCITED ABOUT STUFF, EH? I do agree that we should leave that paragraph out, as it just isn't necessary, and will also be in for no end of nitpicking. You may already have it, but Sheldrake has also been cited in [1] this paper, but I'm not sure how mainstream that is (or where I got the pdf- it may already be in the article). What do you think about the sandbox draft?
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for your comments and for your work on the article! I think the overriding policy here is WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. The article does not give sufficient weight to balancing statements which is why I re-added the paragraph listing citations. We need to let others give their opinions on this. Thanks for the Parnia/Fenwick citation. I will add that also. (I was familiar with this paper from other work but didn't recall the Sheldrake reference). Regarding the sandbox draft: I need to look at it in more detail. Removing the "technical minutiae" of the Rose experiment, the cited p-values and the Tucson reference to the apparent mother-baby telepathy are all problematic and "appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view". In general the present article and the sandbox both suffer from this lack of balance, especially the latter. The WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise policy requires "not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints". --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Re: Pete K
I'm not an administrator. You need to find someone who can help you. Try WP:ANI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- No need to apologize, it's just that I can't help you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mae-Wan Ho
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mae-Wan Ho, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae-Wan Ho. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rob (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Steiner
no worries, it's not that I'm unhappy with it, it's the problem with interest groups controlling pages in a manner that excludes legitimate dissent that I think we should be concerned with. For me it's not even about the defensive of science against pseudo-science, as it may be for some, everyone to there own, but some editors have agendas that need to be dealt with, just wish I had the time and resources to actually tackle this problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that interest groups can be over-protective of pages they're interested in. I am always trying to find balance and neutrality in the articles I work on, but I recognize that I can't always judge when there is insufficient balance, especially if I'm very close to a subject and have personal knowledge of it. That's why I am always grateful for outside views that point out where there are flaws, in particular if there is not an agenda behind those views! So thank you for pointing out the Hammer references. I think they are worth adding to the Rudolf Steiner and possibly the Anthroposophy articles. I will try to work them in. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Lusseyran
That's fine with me. If you have time, it would be good if you could perform the move back, as I have to leave unexpectedly in a second. Academic Challenger (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight
Be careful that you do not give undue weight to critical views in articles. They should be fairly represented, but not over-represented. One test might be to examine the number of critical and the number of positive commentaries on the topic and to ensure that they are mentioned in representative proportion. At least as important: are the critics actually experts in the field of the article? A botanist's critique of modern physics should be given far less weight than a physicist's.
From WP:Undue:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
- Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
Hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
