Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:17, 19 January 2008

Archives

Archive 1

Synchronized electrical cardioversion

Hi MG. I've retexted the article. Would appreciate peer review by you and others.Geoffrey Wickham 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hhifr emblem patch.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hhifr emblem patch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Charleston Fire

I appreciate your help getting the Charleston Sofa Super Store fire article right, and that you are covering for areas where I lack your expertise in formatting and vernacular rules. Working on this article has been a bit of therapy for me, but it is nice to not be alone on it. Thanks very much. Fjbfour 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• From User talk:Fjbfour: Are you with the City of Charleston? It's the least I can do. Glad to help out a brother. User:MoodyGroove 12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I can claim no such honor, I am not from Charleston. I am a firefighter in SW Washington State. But, for some reason, I have found this event to more personally upsetting than I would have expected. Also, the FDNY LODD this week happened to a shift member of a jake I know online. I just feel pretty low for those guys right now, and trying to get the fire article correct and honorable has helped me out. Stay low and safe, my friend. Fjbfour 21:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrisville State Park

Well done on Harrisville State Park! I've been wanting to improve that article for a while. -Ipoellet 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fred Thompson

So I should block an admin and 5 other users instead of protecting the article? That doesn't sound like a good idea. 3 days isn't much. And if you look at the talk page, they're discussing things. Plus, one of the members involved was blocked for 48 hours because of 3RR, so they just started to be in the conversation. I definately don't expect to go the full 6 weeks, but a week as a cool off won't hurt. I would hate to unlock without agreements in place and the war starts up again. What would be the point of that? MECU≈talk 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

Hi MoodyGroove, this was over a year ago and I don't even remember this AfD, but a quick glance at it shows me that the consensus is approximately even split between keeping and deleting the article. This is insufficient for an article to be kept deleted as there needs to be an overwhelming consensus for delete (roughly 80% at the time of this closing). I might close a AfD as "no consensus" if there is a slight consensus to delete (but not overwhelming), but that wasn't even the case in this AfD. If you have any further questions, please let me know. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. But woops, I just noticed I made a mistake and typed the opposite of what I meant (corrected above). I hope you got my meaning though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:Fire Service

MoodyGroove, welcome aboard brother. Everything you need related to templates is available here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fire Service/Templates. Let me know if you need anything else. Glad to have you aboard. Stay low, stay safe --Daysleeper47 13:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Powerful" corporations

Thanks for the communication. I hate revert wars!  :) Probably 'cause I usually lose!  :) I automatically delete adjectives is the best reason I have. Maybe not a good one. A second one is that people have the idea that powerful people are in the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe some chambers, but the really big businesses work behind the scenes in their own manner. They don't trust groups. So "powerful" and "C-of-C" to me are almost oxymorons. It's the tiny businesses that join C-of-C to try to improve their odds in a group. While it may seem to unions that their main job is to squash unions, the ones I've seen are mostly busy trying to get work and jobs. Anyway, my take. I really don't care for pejoratives, like "heavy-handed editor removing adjectives." I prefer "editor removing adjectives." Sounds nicer!  :) And I applaud the "compulsory" for "forced" for similar reasons.Student7 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Susar logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Susar logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale template has been filled out. MoodyGroove 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Defbrillation

My apologies, maybe i was a little quick in my revision summary this morning, but I still think it was a valid point. The information given by the anon editor originally is mostly factually correct (and i'm sure i can find references to match up with it) and i don't direct users to the WP:BITE page often or lightly. I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user if they are new or apparently new (this user having only contributed the same text to two articles qualifies them on that score) and the addition is not vandalism, which i think is a key tenet of assume good faith. Other than that it risks driving new editors away, which is not the idea, and the reason i believe the bite policy is in place.

I think tagging the section with either fact tags, or a references template was a more constructive way to deal with it. My apologies if i caused offence in this, but i felt the points that author made were valid, and worthy of inclusion, if in need of tidying a bit.

As specifically regards intervals, it is certainly true that the analysis time can be detrimental to the efficacy of the shocks - i have the MPEG videos of research on pigs hearts to prove it. I will have to look out the actual published articles on the effect of leaving the heart, but as a brief summary, the 10-30 seconds that some AEDs take to analyse is sufficient for blood to pool in the vena cava and right hand side of the heart, causing it to be misshapen. This makes it less likely to restart on the application of the shock. For this reason, ambulance crews here now do 200 compressions, regardless of rhythm, followed by a shock the moment the hands are clear from the 200th compression (presuming VT/VF/shockable rhythm)

As for the other reversion, i apologise for that, as i'm not a fan of commerical links, but the information is well worth including, although it may be worth removing trade names - that said, as there aren't generic versions, it probably provides more information this way.

Sorry for the upset, and i'll try and get the references in line to justify keeping most of it, if not all.

Thanks Owain.davies 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed WikiProject South Carolina

I wanted to let you know I upped it to the 1.0 standards and wanted some input. We need to recruit some active people to help out with the WikiProject Clemson3564 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing Commercial Link(s)

Thank you for educating me on the restriction of commercial links. You have effectively erased our capnography-centered business from the "capnography" page.

By what criteria do you continue to allow the biggest competitor in our industry, Oridion, advertising space in the External Links section? --Capnography1 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to the above! As a competitor of Oridion, I should not be the one to remove their link from the Capnography page. --Capnography1 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Susar logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Susar logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NFFNMRS logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NFFNMRS logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Harmony Weekend in Harrisville

Nice picture. Thanks for helping. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Notability of author and ISBN numbers

Dear MoodyGroove:

I disagree STRONGLY about your conclusion on ISBN numbers. In fact, a quick perusal of Wiki policy and practice (go to almost any article that cites to a modern book) is that ISBN numbers are preferred. In part this is because it links to most every library in the world, and shows the availability of a particular volume. It also is not a direct link to a particular source for the book. Think about it. Research it, and I think you'll come around to my position.

I'd be happy to refer you to some more experienced Wikipedians than I, so that you can get their opinions. FWIW, I have no direct interest in the book or its profits one way or another. This was not an attempt to "promote a book." It was a part of my much larger effort to deal with the relative paucity of good articles in Misplaced Pages on communities in the northeast Lower peninsula of Michigan. Your suggestion that there was a pecuniary or ulterior motive is wrong, and tends toward the needlessly insulting.

I thought she was noteworthy, at least in the context of Harrisville, Michigan. I recognize that reasonable minds might differ on that issue, but there are local aspects to these articles (e.g., see your posting of pictures of local events) that make the articles of use and of interest to persons in particular locales. That she is not of interest in a cosmological sense is no reason to strike the reference to her.

Additionally, we had a reference in the same article to Judith Guest, a summer resident, and if you go to that page you will find links to her books, with ISBN numbers.

I hope you will reconsider. Let me know what you think.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk)Stan

Notability (continued)

Dear MoodyGroove:

Re: Harrisville

Thanks for your timely and pertinent input. I notice that you've made a lot of contributions to Wiki, and I want to get this right -- your input is of considerable valuable to me.

And I also understand enough about editing wars that they are something that should be a last resort. That was why I wrote to you, so that we could work through this collegially, without the nonsense. I think we can solve this problem together.

As I wrote to you, I only put in the ISBN number because I thought it would be of assistance to the users. I know that they are a powerful tool -- albeit not perfect -- if you want to find a book, or find out about it. I was genuinely under the impression that it was preferable to put them in, and not to leave them off. Indeed, in my Wiki travels I've actually run across (somewhere, don't recall exactly where at the moment) notes (I think maybe in "history" of a particular article) that said exactly that.

I also agree with you. I don't consider the ISBN number integral to the article, so it's not a 'deal breaker' for me.

Another random thought: What if we put it (the ISBN number) in as a footnote? Or is that still crossing a line for you?

Based on your advice, I'll take a whack at it in the morning when I'm feeling fresh. Then you can take a look at it and see if you can live with the result.

If you have any more ideas, kindly let me know. You know where to find me.

Thanks again. Best to you, too.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Harrisville update

You've been real busy. Nice job. It's shaping up, I think.

I understand that we will be subject to further editing. That's expected and is a good part of the process.

Nice working with you.

I was wondering if my statement in the Harrisville, Michigan article about the quality of beaches (citation is from the Detroit Free Press -- I can send you the article if you leave me an E-mail address) would be something we want to include in the Harrisville State Park article. Let me know if you are interested. My e-mail address is dobry@NAArb.org. Please eradicate that from this entry after you review this note. Thanks.

Meanwhile, I rewrote the Grayling, Michigan article, and did some other related entries.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Best undiscovered beaches in Michigan

Here is the article from the Detroit Free Press. Unfortunately, the Detroit Free Press does not keep their archive on line for free. This is the text of the article, which was published on the Sunday before Labor Day, I think May 27, 2007. This also includes the readers comments that were on line at the time I retrieved the article.

(SUSAN TUSA/Detroit Free Press) The often empty Lake Michigan beach along Route 2 in the Upper Peninsula between Brevort and Naubinway. PHOTOS Click thumbnails to zoom photo (SUSAN TUSA/Detroit Free Press) The often empty Lake Michigan beach along Route 2 in the Upper Peninsula between Brevort and Naubinway.

     Driftwood at Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area near Ludington.
   * photo
     The classic red Grand Haven Outer Light on Lake Michigan.
   * photo
     A kiteboarder wrestles in the wind on the beach at South Haven.
   * photo

PHOTO GALLERIES Photo Best beaches in Michigan

RELATED STORIES No. 1: LUDINGTON No. 2: SOUTH HAVEN No. 3: GRAND HAVEN

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Michigan's top beaches 1. Ludington

2. South Haven

3. Grand Haven

4. Brevort-Naubinway, Lake Michigan

• Beaches: All along the Upper Peninsula's U.S. 2. Miles of unbroken white sand beach in a primitive (no bathrooms or amenities), but not remote, setting.

"My nomination for best beach is found in the Upper Peninsula on U.S.-2. I don't think it has a particular name; my dad calls it the "2 Beach." It is located about 15 minutes out of St Ignace on Lake Michigan. Clear as a bell, no rocks, all sand as far as you can see. I absolutely love it and go every year now," Aurora LaLonde of Saginaw writes.

• Getting there: Drive west on U.S.-2 from St. Ignace.

5. Empire-Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, Lake Michigan

• Beaches: Empire city beach and the national lakeshore beaches, especially the one by the Platte River outlet. Breathtaking white sweeps of beach, friendly to families.

"The best beach in Michigan is Empire Beach. It's right there on the Sleeping Bear Dunes, long white sandy beach, clear blue water, a small lighthouse, playground, volleyball and open to the public," Dan from Canton writes.

• Getting there: Drive west from Traverse City on M-72 to Empire and the entrance to the national lakeshore.

6. Oscoda-Harrisville, Lake Huron

• Beaches: Negwegon and Harrisville state park beaches, beaches near Greenbush. Old-fashioned lake vacations abound on this pretty stretch of Lake Huron.

"Don't tell ANYONE!!! I like Negwegon, just north of Harrisville State Park. You have to get instructions from the Harrisville park people who will tell you how to get there. You take a little dirt road because it's undeveloped," Susan Oleszkowicz writes.

• Getting there: Take M-23 north of Oscoda to reach both state parks and the town of Greenbush.

7. Pentwater, Lake Michigan

• Beach: Charles Mears State Park beach. A cute village complements the state park nearby with its sweeping white sand beach.

"There is no debate. The beach at Charles Mears State Park in Pentwater Michigan is by far the best. But don't tell anyone. It will get too crowded," John Gerlach of St. Clair Shores writes.

• Getting there: U.S.-31 to the Pentwater exit.

8. St. Joseph, Lake Michigan

• Beaches: Silver Beach, Tiscornia Park beach and Grand Mere State Park beaches.

"Silver Beach is long and wide with small dunes and two piers with a lighthouse. There's also beach volleyball, swing sets and playground, snack bar and outdoor pavilion where music festivals are held. You cannot beat the sunsets anywhere! On clear nights, the lights of Chicago glow over the lake," Nik Rajkovic, who used to live in St. Joe, writes.

• Getting there: I-94 to the St. Joseph-Benton Harbor exits.

9. Port Austin-Caseville, Lake Huron

• Beaches: Sleeper and Port Crescent state park beaches. Sugary sand beaches along Saginaw Bay; the parks are popular with day-trippers from metro Detroit.

"I grew up in Bay City and spent many hours at the beach in Sleeper State Park, then my children did too. Now it is my grandchild's turn to go. It is a beautiful beach with a sandbar at the shore and you can walk out a long way in the water before it gets deep," Debbie Roth of Davison writes.

• Getting there: M-25 to the tip of the Thumb.

10. Muskegon, Lake Michigan

• Beaches: Pere Marquette city beach, Muskegon and P.J. Hoffmaster state park beaches. Good combination of city and state park beaches. Michigan's Adventure amusement park is also nearby.

"Pere Marquette Beach is my family's favorite -- it's clean, you have elbow room, and they blessedly even sectioned off a mile designated for dogs," Annette Phillips of Ferrysburg writes.

• Getting there: Take I-96 until it ends at U.S. 31 at Muskegon; turn south on 31 to the Fruitport exit for P.J. Hoffmaster; turn north to Muskegon exits for the other beaches.

For more on all these beaches, see www.travel.michigan.org and www.michigan.gov/dnr . More great Michigan beaches The most underrated beach in the state, says author Tom Powers, author of "Michigan State and Nationals Parks" fourth edition (Thunder Bay Press, $15.95) is P.H. Hoeft State Park beach on Lake Huron, near Rogers City. With a gorgeous white sand beach and few visitors, "It's one of the most overlooked parks in Michigan," he says.

But everyone has a favorite beach. Here are more recommended by readers:

Lake Erie

• Sterling State Park beach, Monroe

Lake Huron

• Oak Beach between Port Austin and Caseville

• Beaches along M-134 between DeTour and Cedarville in the Upper Peninsula

Lake Michigan

• Oval Beach, Saugatuck

• Lake Michigan Beach and Ferry Beach, Charlevoix

• Warren Dunes State Park Beach, Sawyer

• Pierport Township Beach, Onekama

• Clinch Park Beach, Traverse City

• Arcadia Public Beach, Arcadia

• Manistee Beach, Manistee

• Wilderness State Park beach, west of Mackinaw City

• Frankfort and Elberta beaches, Frankfort-Elberta

• Cathead Bay Beach, Leelanau Peninsula

• Bowers Harbor Beach, Old Mission Peninsula

• Haserot Beach, Old Mission Peninsula

• Duck Lake Beach, Whitehall

• Petoskey State Park Beach, Petoskey

• Good Harbor Beach, Leland

• Glen Haven Beach, near Leland

• Beach on west shore, Beaver Island

• Holland State Park beach, Holland

• Big Pine Beach west of Brimley, Upper Peninsula

• Escanaba Municipal Beach, Escanaba, Upper Peninsula

• Van Cleve Park Beach, Gladstone, Upper Peninsula

Lake Superior

• Chapel Beach, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Munising

• Eagle Harbor Beach, Eagle Harbor

• Bete Gris Beach, Lac La Belle

• Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park beach, Ontonagon RELATED NEWS FROM THE WEB

   * St. Clair Shores, MI
   * Lake Michigan Beach, MI
   * Benton Harbor, MI
   * Saginaw, MI
   * Canton, MI
   * Traverse City, MI
   * Discuss Traverse City, MI

Powered by Topix.net

The favorite, the secret, the best Great Lakes beaches May 27, 2007 Stories and Photos by ELLEN CREAGER | FREE PRESS TRAVEL WRITER LUDINGTON -- Heart-wrenchingly beautiful beaches. Long, white strips of sand and blue water that invite you to walk forever. Michigan has 3,200 miles of coastline, much of it stunning, so stunning I can't forget it even after I go back to Detroit and spend dull mornings hunched over my desk. And you know what? It makes me mad. Advertisement It makes me mad that the world -- and maybe we, ourselves -- see this state as some bleak economic basket case whose best future is behind it. Through these dark glasses, we can't recall Michigan's fresh, incredible beauty. Of course, most Michiganders have their super-top-secret favorite beaches. Are we just too selfish to share with the rest of the world? "There is no way I'm going to tell you where the best beach is. The tourists will just wreck it. It is nice and quiet now and I want to keep it that way," wrote one reader who was so secretive he wouldn't even reveal his name when I asked for nominations. And of course, "great" is a subjective term. For some, it's a beachy fun vibe. For others, it's solitary stroll. Some want shallow water; some want rolling waves. And everybody likes sugary white sand. Ask for Michigan's best Great Lakes beach, and a few places come up over and over again -- Ludington, South Haven, Grand Haven and on the strip of Lake Michigan shoreline along U.S. 2 in the Upper Peninsula. "I remember that U.S. 2 beach since childhood," says Tom Powers, author of the new fourth edition of "Michigan State and National Parks" (Thunder Bay Press, $15.95). He also likes the beach on the west shore of Beaver Island -- "You really get a Robinson Crusoe experience," he says. Even the head of Michigan's parks and recreation division, Ron Olson, has his favorites. "Grand Mere is a quiet spot but a really cool spot" in southwest Michigan, says Olson, who also likes the Holland and Port Crescent state park beaches. So I set off to look at some sand. Yes, it's not mid-July; it's still May, and yes, Lake Michigan is still 45 degrees and a brisk onshore breeze blows. Beaches, like you, are just waking up for summer. But I saw the beaches in their natural state, the way they are 10 months of the year. The winners? The readers were right. Ludington, South Haven and Grand Haven are tops for a reason. But there also are a whole bunch of other fantastic beaches rounding out our Top 10 and beyond. Contact ELLEN CREAGER at 313-222-6498 or ecreager@freepress.com. . StoryChat

   * Post a CommentPost a Comment
   * View all CommentsView All Comments

jjrog@umich.edu

Many people are unaware of Weko Beach. It is in Bridgman MI and is contiguous with Warren Dunes State Park on its north edge. That means miles of uncrowded beaches, beautiful dunes, and nonstop hiking. It's clean and quiet because no jet skis are allowed and only small boats can be launched. It's sand-raked several times a week and the amount of parking is limited so there can't be big crowds. There is a beach house featuring a cafe as well as public restrooms and changing rooms. There's outdoor shower, foot rinse, picnic tables, grills, camp ground, playground, and extensive boardwalks going up and over some dunes. Taps is played at sunset every evening in the summer and people gather for it daily. There are free live concerts off the beach house deck every other Sunday evening and a large wine fest one weekend each summer.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:31 pm TimeRanger

Should have mentioned this before - the beach shown in the photo - along US-2 is empty for a reason.... That water almost never warms up enough to be comfortable to swim in. No matter how beautiful the beach or how high the air temperature gets, if you have to have brass 'nads to go swimming, the beach will be vacant.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:27 am TimeRanger

renren - Where? When?

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:55 am FormerLionsFan

Ernest Hemingw.... i mean Timeranger. I agree 100% with you man. Laughing

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:49 pm renren

Time Ranger

I once lived there too.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:24 pm

7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

The distinction between facts and values (i.e., the limits of science)

(WP:SOAP userfied from Talk:Politicization of science) This article focuses only on those aspects of the politicization of science that are unambiguously bad. Like it or not, modern natural science recognizes a distinction between facts and values, and as such cannot pronounce on its own goodness. Science can only say "we can do a thing" and cannot say "we ought to do a thing". One could imagine any number of horrors that modern natural science could create. So who should control science? CEOs of companies that hire scientists? Can we safely assume that the editors of this article recognize that our elected representatives have a right to place reasonable controls on what science attempts to accomplish? This article makes a very gray issue black and white. Science is necessarily political, and the title of this article attempts to stigmatize for political reasons. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Actually, it is false to say that "modern natural science recognizes a distinction between facts and values" as such a distinction lies outside science's purview and most probably lies in an area between philosophy of science and the philosophical field of ethics (though epistemology might also play a part).

Modern natural science must recognize the distinction to recognize it's outside the realm of science. Again, science is not capable of making value judgments of any kind. Hence, any number of evil things could occur in the name of science. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Your first statement is a ludicrous argument. You could as easily claim "science must recognise the distinction between a sonnet and a limerick to recognise it's outside the realm of science." All that you are really doing is making the trivial point that science is a separate field from philosophical field of ethics -- but then so are a vast number of other fields.

You can call it ludicrous if you want to, but that doesn't make it so. You have not answered the thrust of my argument. Namely, that any number of evil things could be accomplished in the name of science. Hence, science requires oversight. Reasonable people can disagree about how that might be accomplished, but anytime someone makes a value judgment about science (it ought to do this thing or ought not to do that thing), it is necessarily political. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

No, MoodyGroove: I did not merely "call" it ludicrous, I demonstrated that it was ludicrous, using the sonnet/limerick example. As such it has no "thrust", it is just empty nonsensical bloviating. Far more evil has been done in the name of religion than "in the name of science", should religion therefore be placed under political oversight? For that matter, far more evil has been done in the name of politics, rendering an argument for political oversight of science "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse." Finally, can you point to even a single, unambiguous "evil perpetuated in the name of science" that cannot be in part attributed to outside (political/ideological/etc) interference in science, and that would have benefited from increased political involvement? I rather suspect not. Your whole line of 'argument' is lacking in either factual substantiation or coherent logic. Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your claim that "any number of evil things could occur in the name of science" is quite simply empty and meaningless rhetoric.Hrafn_Stalk 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't imagine a single appalling scientific experiment that should not take place? I fail to see how this is an empty and meaningless comment. Perhaps you could explain what makes it meaningless. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I can conceive of any number of things -- the vast majority of them are too improbable (and particularly improbable that they would happen to a substantive, non-self-defeating extent) to base policy on. Empty rhetorical scare tactics just makes you look like another politician. Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish you two would take this debate elsewhere. No matter which of you I agree with, I fail to see how your opinions are related to the topic of this page.

"The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The lone exception to this, of course, is when airing our personal views reminds us of what published authors have said. Then, I guess, it's okay. :-)

Can we turn this into a list of suggestions of how to improve the article now? For example, perhaps there is a philosopher of science who says that modern natural science recognizes a distinction between facts and values. And maybe there's another one who disagrees. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of political scientists and political philosophers who have explored this issue, from Aristotle to Leo Strauss. But no one is denying that science makes a distinction between facts and values. That's the irony here. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I just finished denying this, so your claim is completely dishonest. The field of science does not deal with questions of value, any more than it deals with questions of beauty. This is not a flaw in the field of science, it is a simple demarcation issue, from which no substantive policy inferences may be drawn. The fact that it is outside the field of science is why interdisciplinary fields such as bioethics have been formed. Your argument is thus without merit. Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Can we safely assume that the editors of this article recognize that our elected representatives have a right to place reasonable controls on what science attempts to accomplish?" No. (1) It is a violation of academic freedom. (2) As science is an international endeavour it would be utterly futile. At best, they can expect to place reasonable limits on how this scientific knowledge may be used, in their own country.(3) And finally, the politicians in question are not my elected representatives -- they are foreign representatives of what many would describe as a self-absorbed, jingoistic, corrupt, pseudo-democratic plutocracy. Why should I place any trust in them?

(1) Are you suggesting that scientists should have an absolute right to academic freedom? No matter how evil or vile the experiment? (2) I agree that mass dissemination is a hallmark of modern natural science (and hence it is international) but that doesn't prove the position that science ought to be left alone, only that you perceive any effort to control science as futile. (3) What politicians have I mentioned? Your comments here are bizarre, and frankly, hateful. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

(1) I am not arguing for an absolute right to academic freedom, just that this right would necessitate compelling grounds for overturning it, and you have presented none. Again your claims of "evil or vile the experiment" is again just empty rhetoric.

But you haven't explained why you think it's empty rhetoric. It appears you won't concede the point, but it's a fact that science can be used for both good and evil. It's also a fact that science is constitutionally unable to make value judgments. The purpose of this discussion was simply to point out that politics has a legitimate role in controlling or directing science. The accusation that "politics is trumping science" or that science is somehow being "politicized" is often nothing more than POV pushing by people who believe that governments do not have the right to limit experimentation on human embryos, for example. I was attempting to alert the editors of this article to that danger. Ideally, the end result will be an article that conforms more to the spirit of WP:NPOV. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It is empty rhetoric because you have not demonstrated any substantive concern. All you have done is claim that they might do "evil or vile" things. That is just empty scare tactics, no basis for policy. Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(2) A single nation attempting to restrict scientific research is indeed futile. The only restrictions that would have a hope of being effective would be those imposed by an overwhelming consensus of nations.

Perhaps, but consensus starts with one, does it not? And a nation has a right not to partake in something that offends its moral sensibilities, regardless of consensus. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

More empty rhetoric -- nations are not people, and so don't have "moral sensibilities" -- in fact they frequently act, out of expediency, in ways that directly contradict their purported moral sensibilities (e.g. a rather well known nation, which trumpets its love of liberty and freedom at every opportunity, supporting any number of despotic tyrants in the name of geopolitics). Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(3)(i) You said "our elected representatives", clearly indicating that you believed that we shared them (ii) the politicisation of science has been an issue in the recent past mainly in the US, so it is hardly a surprise that people would surmise that by "our elected representatives" you meant US politicians. I find the ethnocentricism underlying such a statement to be rather annoying. Hrafn_Stalk

To me the issue is broad and general (i.e., the appropriate relationship of politics to science). MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I suspect not. You have given every indication that your viewpoint is narrow and sectarian -- hence your continual usage of terms such as "vile" and "evil".

• Science is not "necessarily political", it is (as I have said) necessarily international and thus outside the control of any individual nation's political system.

Hrafn_Stalk 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's true that modern natural science is outside the control of any particular nation's political system, that does not necessarily mean that the so-called "politicization of science" is bad, at least not without qualification. At best, it only demonstrates a huge problem for humanity. One could just as easily conclude that science is a potential monster that has slipped its leash. I should also add that international does not refute political. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Unsubstantiated baloney! Please cite and substantiate cases where the politicisation of science has had an unambiguously positive effect. Or to put it another way: cite reliable sources or take this soapbox somewhere else.Hrafn_Stalk 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that science should be manipulated for political gain. But this article isn't titled "Manipulation of science for political gain" (and why shouldn't it be?). I think the article would be more interesting and less POV if it explained the so-called politicization of science within the context of the overall relationship between politics and science. Have a nice day. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

We have an article on the fact-value distinction. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know. My concern is that this article does not conform to the spirit of WP:NPOV. This article makes it seem like politics and science are necessarily insoluble, or that politics has no legitimate interest in controlling the direction of science. Is there a tension between politics and science? Absolutely! And there should be. But to imply that each inhabits separate realms, and ought to be rigidly separate, should not be presupposed by this article. It is not self-evident! Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

They shouldn't be separate -- good political decisions should be based on accurate scientific evidence. Censoring or distorting this scientific evidence for partisan reasons, which is the subject of this article, is per se harmful -- both to politics and to science. Hrafn_Stalk 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the political sphere doesn't understand science sufficiently to regulate it in an effective manner -- the best that they can hope to do is to give teeth to self-regulation -- to give force of law to codes of practice developed by consensus among scientists, bioethicists, etc. Hrafn_Stalk 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have had in this thread is a vast amount of WP:SOAP, lacking any substantive (i.e. based on WP:V & WP:RS information) suggestions for improvement, so I'm userfying the whole thing. Hrafn_Stalk 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)