Difference between revisions 35153 and 35244 on enwiki

Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Blue-Green Alliance]]
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Conservation movement]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Environmental movement]]
*[[Evolution of societies]]
(contracted; show full)

It also has a fair number of academic and scientific sorts working on it, which means that academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed. Luck to you in future contributions! [[user:-- April|-- April]]
:I agree, April, that 24 can be damaging to his own cause, while Zundark is there like a bull in a china shop at the other end of the teeter-totter.  The true NPOV is likely somewhere in between.  [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]

⏎

⏎
-----
24 here:  I don't object to a single blessed word of this.  In fact I'm very pleased that you're on the case.  It shows there is a consensus process here, that it's not unanimous (i.e. always blocked until a dictator shows up), etc.

I'm also pleased that "academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed."  That's as it should be.

However, most of the issues with my writing have been with regard to ecology, which is where I made reference to these standards from day one and even went out on a limb to ensure that political material supposedly based on ecological theory was using the right words to describe the right thing in advance of some Green group agreeing on it.  In my experience if no one does that we never see it done... if you're a Green Party member, you know how many irrational objections block things.

Now, I don't want to make work for people who don't have a feel for the material, I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people are on the case here, and I'm willing to make a profound and detailed case for why these things are defined as they are - each of them.  I'll use the "talk" feature for that as things come up.

I'm in a rush for other reasons - I've been working on this material for a long time, I'm going to lose online access for a while, and I would like to make sure that there's a starting point for genuine experts in each topic to correct, edit, update, etc..

If you know anything about ecology or Green politics, you know that it's a movement of specialists, and that people who can write such articles in plain language are rare.  People who can actually write neutrally are even rarer.

Maybe I'm not one of them.

So, here's what I can do:  First, I can explain exactly how I define neutral - I already did that in the NPOV article itself, and differentiated a thing called "natural point of view" which pretends not to rely on human adult type socialization.  I didn't say I could do it - I said it exists.

I realize there's a bit of a gap when "body and environment concerns" doesn't parse...

Also, I can explain exactly how I see ethical balances between the "neutral" and "natural" view - and what moral foundation they rest on.  The "Simple View of Ethics and Morals" was good when I found it - but now it's really the best short guide to the subject anywhere.  I encourage you to read it and see if you agree.  If not, we should have that discussion before we have this one.

I'd like to help you get to 100,000 articles, hell I could write 10,000 myself, but first you have to trust that I'm at least more right than wrong, and that the way I write these things will bring in more expert helpers than just leaving them blank or incompletely defined.