| Revision as of 22:13, 16 July 2006 editSmile a While (talk | contribs)Rollbackers16,852 editsm →Peer review← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:18, 16 July 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Peer reviewNext edit → |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|
|
|
|
*First of all, please read ]. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Misplaced Pages. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit (on which I have no view). I quote from the WP article ]: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. ] |
|
*First of all, please read ]. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Misplaced Pages. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit (on which I have no view). I quote from the WP article ]: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::You're talking utter nonsense. People don't need to have had articles peer reviewed before they merit articles on Misplaced Pages, and her Next of Kin report is not at all pivotal to this. What gives you that impression? As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction, please read our content policies about how to edit. That is not how articles are written. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*I notice that my edit has been reverted again with no explanation other than 'stop this nonsense'. Clearly my attempt to make this article meet NPOV has been rejected. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war so I have simply tagged this article as not meeting NPOV. ] 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
:*I notice that my edit has been reverted again with no explanation other than 'stop this nonsense'. Clearly my attempt to make this article meet NPOV has been rejected. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war so I have simply tagged this article as not meeting NPOV. ] 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. SlimVirgin 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)