User talk:128.111.95.210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding Schleitheim Confession, I reverted your change because you didn't use an edit summary to explain why you were deleting a pretty significant sounding piece of info. If your edit is legit, please do it again and mention why so it's not treated like vandalism, it's difficult for non-subject experts to interpret what you're doing if you do so without saying anything. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] please see NPOV policy

Welcome!

Hello 128.111.95.210, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have been reverted. There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Allen 05:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response to your note

Hi! Thanks for your note on my user talk page. I'm fairly new myself (I've been active about two months), but my understanding is that, yes, POV by omission is taken seriously. And I think you're right that it is a problem on a lot of articles, although I haven't looked at the Mennonite issue you mentioned. But, as you've probably gathered, it is a lot harder to combat than "regular" POV. Regular POV can simply be taken out, while with POV by omission you have to compose new stuff. The main thing to remember when composing new stuff, to keep it from getting called POV, is to word all opinions as opinions. You started to do that with your edit on the PAS page, when you said something like, "Children's rights advocates say..." But then some of the later sentences in that paragraph seemed to state opinions without attributing them to anyone. It can be tedious to keep putting "They also say..." at the beginning of each sentence in the paragraph, but sometimes that's what has to be done. Also, attributing views to "children's rights advocates" isn't ideal -- it would be better to be more specific. For example, it would be better to say, "So-and-So from Such-and-Such organization says..." and then give the address of a website or something where they say that. It's tough for anyone to argue with you if you do it that way.

You also asked about "revert". Basically a revert is where you undo either the last change, or the last several changes to an article. Anyone can do it, whether they're logged in or not. Check out the page Wikipedia:Revert for instructions. (Technically, what I did when I took out that paragraph you wrote was not a revert; I actually went in and just deleted the text. But I called it a revert in my edit summary because it had a similar effect.)

Thanks very much for asking about this, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. While I'm at it, I also want to encourage you to get a username. It really is easy; they don't ask for any personal information, just a password and a username. There's a list of reasons why getting a username is good on this page.

Happy editing! --Allen 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was just reading your note again, and wanted to mention one more thing -- POV, whether direct or by omission, is rarely "disciplined" per se. People may change it or remove it, but that's not considered discipline -- that's just the normal process at Wikipedia. The only way someone would normally be "disciplined" for POV (that is, warned repeatedly and then eventually blocked from editing) is if they kept reinserting the same text over and over again without discussing it (called "edit warring"), or if the text they added was so extremely POV as to border on vandalism. (For example, if someone goes to the George W. Bush page and inserts, "I think Bush is a huge @#%$", that might technically be considered extreme POV, but it's likely it would just get called vandalism.) Anyway, just wanted to clear that up; hopefully it'll make the Wikipedia process seem a little friendlier. --Allen 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additions to incest

Your editions are professional and very reasonable, but they assume a Western-centred and human-centred view. So, just keep in mind that a) incest isn't taboo in some cultures, and isn't seen as "detestable", even parent-child relationships, though it is in almost all Western cultures b) many animal societies are incestuous, ie. bonobos, so it would be kind of wrong to say that's "detestable" (they are just preserving their genetic integrity or just being promiscuous to resolve disputes, in this case recessive genes are encouraged, but recessive genes are not always bad, depending on species). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ok fair enough. I know you are correct here about other cultures. I will be glad to delete 'destestable' (which comes from personal experience) and anything else that seems loaded with POV or incorrect to you (and to me too). 128.111.95.210 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some revisions, so re-look them over (not sure how proficient you are with Wiki-software, just alerting you to the use of the "history" button), and tell me if you agree with my rewordings. I removed quite a bit of text when they were POV and I couldn't reword, but I tried to replace it with the NPOV statement that it is taboo in Western cultures, and why Western culture views it this way. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural law

Natural law is not as metaphysical as you may think. The use of the word "proper" implies the view that there is a natural relationship and role of individuals, and within a familial context, role within the family. This sanctioned or natural role, used natural law to derive its authority or precedent. Although most people don't realise it, the idea of human rights is derived from natural law, ie. the right to freedom of expression, right to non-abuse by parents...these are all rights granted by natural law. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "emotional rape"

Hmm, I was only trying to find a formal replacement (that we have an article for) for this concept, as I have never heard of it, but was inferring as to what it was. I infer it is the attempt to try to force a certain set of emotions or sexuality on the child, so I thought coercion (and manipulation) would fit. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/2/8/User_talk%7E128.111.95.210.html"