| Revision as of 20:35, 4 February 2006 editStbalbach (talk | contribs)24,748 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:12, 4 February 2006 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,336 edits →"critical is positive"Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ::The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --] 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | ::The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --] 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yes, it ''can'' mean the opposite of ''negative,'' but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" ''for'' Barrett, while the others are "critical" and ''against'' Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. ''Accurate'' documentation is considered allowable. | |||
| :::Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He ''knows'' they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it. -- ] 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:12, 4 February 2006
Is there a source for the claim that Barrett isn't currently licensed to practice medicine? --Icarus 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously we need a source. This is not the first time Ive heard this, so there may be somthing to it more than POV by the anon user, but without a source, it needs a source. Stbalbach 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I say we leave it for a week or so to allow someone to add a source, and then remove it if it does not have a source at that point. If it's true, it can always be added back whenever someone does present a source. --Icarus 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
On Sources
There is no factual reson to doubt the documents authenticity. Court records are not always made available online by the court, and any transcript made available from a third party could just as easily be discounted for the same reasons, its a burdon of proof that is extreme, Misplaced Pages is not original research, it reports on what others are saying and lets the reader decide. Stbalbach 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- A trial transcript is not "original research." In fact, the guideline on reliable sources specifically mentions trial transcripts as credible primary sources. By contrast, a press release issued by one side in a contentious court dispute is far from a reliable source. If a transcript is not available, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in this case, a neutral and uninvolved news article about the proceedings should be cited at the very least.
- It's hardly extreme to ask for a citation from a work that doesn't happen to be online; people cite printed material all the time here. Don't be lazy! The clerk of courts of the civil division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas can be reached at (610) 782-3148. Ask for a transcript from case number 2002-C-1837 and I'm sure she'll be happy to help you out. --PHenry 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Getting a transcript costs money and time. I am curious, but not that much -- but perhaps the person who added the link would like to follow up with it. I've added a note to their talk page. Stbalbach 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
"critical is positive"
"critical is positive" is your POV, please don't impose it on the article - I dont know about "imposing", your the one who is creating sections based on value judgement terms. Most articles dont do that. In any case, youve changed the word "positive" to the more neutral "Advocacy" which I can live with. --Stbalbach 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Many other articles dealing with controversial subjects have separate sections for external links. The descriptions vary, but they do exist as a common practice. You are using the word "positive" in a different sense than was intended, which is an unfair trick. I used it in the sense normally used in such cases - links positively oriented towards the subject of the article. The other links - labeled critical - are obviously critical of the subject. I changed the word (to a more awkward one) to hopefully avoid an editing war. -- Fyslee 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --Stbalbach 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it can mean the opposite of negative, but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" for Barrett, while the others are "critical" and against Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. Accurate documentation is considered allowable.
- Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He knows they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it. -- Fyslee 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)