Talk:Pedophilia: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
imported>Mike Mayors m (→Controversy) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The goal here is to present this topic in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. The goal here is to be a great on-line free encyclopedia. I am willing to help you do that. This is ny nature a contentious subject and our goal has nothing to do with a head to head rivalry with Wikipedia. It can be destructive to the wiki to fcus on contentious and inflammatory subjects - like child sexual abuse and pedophilia. I am willing to do that because I am expert enough to guide us in making an informative article that is NOT contentious, but educates according to the consensus of modern [[medicine]], including the work of clinical psychologtists. ''No one here is expert enough to make the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of this topic the centerpiece of this article'', and I have overstepped my bounds here to avoid that. Just like fat and salt taste best, and pornography draws a crowd, so does conetentiousness- that doesn't mean any of these things are good for us. Quite the opposite. Please, let us consider what is important about this topic in an educational manner. Unless you personally have the expertise to guide this article through the most fringe and inflammatory aspects of the subject, I ask you to refrain from putting up a guide post or plan that inplies that's the course the article should take. If you disagree, please e-mail me privately through my user page. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:10, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | The goal here is to present this topic in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. The goal here is to be a great on-line free encyclopedia. I am willing to help you do that. This is ny nature a contentious subject and our goal has nothing to do with a head to head rivalry with Wikipedia. It can be destructive to the wiki to fcus on contentious and inflammatory subjects - like child sexual abuse and pedophilia. I am willing to do that because I am expert enough to guide us in making an informative article that is NOT contentious, but educates according to the consensus of modern [[medicine]], including the work of clinical psychologtists. ''No one here is expert enough to make the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of this topic the centerpiece of this article'', and I have overstepped my bounds here to avoid that. Just like fat and salt taste best, and pornography draws a crowd, so does conetentiousness- that doesn't mean any of these things are good for us. Quite the opposite. Please, let us consider what is important about this topic in an educational manner. Unless you personally have the expertise to guide this article through the most fringe and inflammatory aspects of the subject, I ask you to refrain from putting up a guide post or plan that inplies that's the course the article should take. If you disagree, please e-mail me privately through my user page. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:10, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I totally concur, Nancy. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 10:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
:Same here. I'll do my best to find non-controversial sources. [[User:Mike Mayors|Mike Mayors]] [[User talk:Mike Mayors|(Talk)]] 10:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:15, 10 June 2007
Mike- are you quoting? If so- put in the quotation marks and give your references. Put the references down as you read the ones I sent you under References, please. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 14:25, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
- Actually I just know that from doing online reading - but sure, I'll provide the reference you sent to me. Thanks. Mike Mayors (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Citing sources?
I'm not sure how to cite it properly. When someone gets a chance, can you check/correct my citation in the introduction? Mike Mayors (Talk) 14:38, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Controversy
The goal here is to present this topic in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. The goal here is to be a great on-line free encyclopedia. I am willing to help you do that. This is ny nature a contentious subject and our goal has nothing to do with a head to head rivalry with Wikipedia. It can be destructive to the wiki to fcus on contentious and inflammatory subjects - like child sexual abuse and pedophilia. I am willing to do that because I am expert enough to guide us in making an informative article that is NOT contentious, but educates according to the consensus of modern medicine, including the work of clinical psychologtists. No one here is expert enough to make the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of this topic the centerpiece of this article, and I have overstepped my bounds here to avoid that. Just like fat and salt taste best, and pornography draws a crowd, so does conetentiousness- that doesn't mean any of these things are good for us. Quite the opposite. Please, let us consider what is important about this topic in an educational manner. Unless you personally have the expertise to guide this article through the most fringe and inflammatory aspects of the subject, I ask you to refrain from putting up a guide post or plan that inplies that's the course the article should take. If you disagree, please e-mail me privately through my user page. Nancy Sculerati 10:10, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- I totally concur, Nancy. Yi Zhe Wu 10:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Same here. I'll do my best to find non-controversial sources. Mike Mayors (Talk) 10:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)