Talk:Center for Genetics and Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wow, what a point of view article! The whole thing uncritically accepts this controversial bioconservative organisation's decription of itself. I'll have to de-POV it when I get a chance. Metamagician3000 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Chunks of it also seem to be a copyvio from here, for which the user responsible seems to be Oobasogie (talk ยท contribs) [1]; I'm concerned that other pieces are copied from pages as yet unidentified. Anville 21:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to have coined a new word: "decription". That should, of course, be "decryption" ... er, I mean "description". Anyway, will look at the link, but yes it certainly sounds like the words the organisation would use of itself, rather than a neutral description. This organisation is basically a left-leaning bioconservative think-tank, so that's how I think it should be described. Metamagician3000 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't "decription" the process of becoming decrepit? Or, the removal of Crips from the neighborhood (in favor, perhaps, of the Bloods)? Anville 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know that process all too well. Meanwhile, I've rewritten the article in neutral language. See what you think. Metamagician3000 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The changes move the page in the proper direction, I think. Would it be useful to compare and contrast this Center with other think-tanks elsewhere in the political landscape? (I'm assuming, of course, that such a contrast could be done without infringing NOR.) Anville 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know that process all too well. Meanwhile, I've rewritten the article in neutral language. See what you think. Metamagician3000 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't "decription" the process of becoming decrepit? Or, the removal of Crips from the neighborhood (in favor, perhaps, of the Bloods)? Anville 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to have coined a new word: "decription". That should, of course, be "decryption" ... er, I mean "description". Anyway, will look at the link, but yes it certainly sounds like the words the organisation would use of itself, rather than a neutral description. This organisation is basically a left-leaning bioconservative think-tank, so that's how I think it should be described. Metamagician3000 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[Un-indent]Maybe there's a way to categorise such think-tanks. I wonder whether we have any relevant categories at the moment. There's also other legitimate NPOV information that could go in this article, such as the identities of the organisation's board and its academic affiliates (fellows, or whatever), its slogan, the details of the role it took in campaigning against the stem-cell initiative in California (what concessions it wanted, and which of these were obtained ... things like that), and so on. Metamagician3000 09:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see it is categorised as an "appropriate technology organisation". I'm not sure what that is, but fair enough. Metamagician3000 09:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
