| Revision as of 02:45, 25 June 2012 editAcadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs)4,651 edits →Strange tagging← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 25 June 2012 edit undoAcadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs)4,651 edits →Strange taggingNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| ::::::::::::::::::::Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ]·] 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | ::::::::::::::::::::Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ]·] 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Furthermore, this sentence is argued to problematic: "Biosocial criminology has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences" The source states "Perhaps the most commonly held stereotype of biosocial criminology among most sociological criminologists is that only biology and genetics are studied, while the potential effects of the environment are ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth." So I am not sure what the problem it. ] (]) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::::::Furthermore, this sentence is argued to problematic: "Biosocial criminology has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences" The source states "Perhaps the most commonly held stereotype of biosocial criminology among most sociological criminologists is that only biology and genetics are studied, while the potential effects of the environment are ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth." So I am not sure what the problem it. ] (]) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Another claimed problematic sentence: "Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is argued to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females." The source is obviously the review I cite as the source. But if you wish we specify that this is based on the ]. Not sure why this is a problem.] (]) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::::::Another claimed problematic sentence: "Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is argued to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females." The source is obviously the review I cite as the source. But if you wish we specify that this is based on the ] theory. Not sure why this is a problem.] (]) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 25 June 2012
 | Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biology C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from Biosocial criminology appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Strange tagging
Maunus is strangely making various tags on the article. The sources are clearly stated. Please explain. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing strange about these tags. Merely saying that "studies have been criticized" is not enough to achieve balanced coverage. You of course have to say by whom and for which reasons. Merely citing the review is not enough, you need to include citations to the articles that made the critiques. The article is full of weaseling like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that studies cited in a review must be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- No but we have this funny requirement called "NPOV" - I don't know if you've heard of it. It states that if there is critical coverage of a topic then it needs to be balancedly included, not merely mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neither does NPOV requre that articles and authors cited in a review should be listed. Claiming citation are missing is not the same as claiming POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Correct, but in this case the missing citation of the opposing viewpoint makes the article non-neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no missing citation since none is required for sources in review sources. The statements have sources with the exception of some in the history section. If you want to argue POV you should use different tags/templates and provide an adequate explanations. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your are also for some reason placed an article template in the middle of the article instead of at the top. Why? It disrupts the text. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just supply the sourcing where I ask for it thank you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can add the review sources but it should not be needed since placing them at the end of the paragraph is perfectly acceptable. But if you insist I will.Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have removed many of the citation needed templates which is good. What is your objection to the Cinderella effect source? Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is Daly and Wilson who did the original study. It doesn't mention what the critiques are or who made them. Clearly tendentious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is a review. The sources for the review can be found by reading it. There is no requirement that the sources for a review article should be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am not claiming there is such a requirement. There is a requirement that the article be balanced. It currently is not. A review of critical literature by the criticized authors themselves is obviously not neutral or reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you are arguing POV you should not use the "who" template but some other. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The who template is for weasel words such as "it has been argued", "there has been criticism", "some scholars have said", "it is sometimes claimed" etc. Those kinds of phrases give the appearance of being neutral by acknowledging the existence of criticism, but fails to adequately show the reason what the criticism consisted of and who made it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Taking the example of the Cinderella effect neither the arguments for or against are presented. They are discussed in the main article on that subject. A brief summary referring to other articles are common in Misplaced Pages. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The who template is for weasel words such as "it has been argued", "there has been criticism", "some scholars have said", "it is sometimes claimed" etc. Those kinds of phrases give the appearance of being neutral by acknowledging the existence of criticism, but fails to adequately show the reason what the criticism consisted of and who made it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you are arguing POV you should not use the "who" template but some other. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am not claiming there is such a requirement. There is a requirement that the article be balanced. It currently is not. A review of critical literature by the criticized authors themselves is obviously not neutral or reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is a review. The sources for the review can be found by reading it. There is no requirement that the sources for a review article should be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is Daly and Wilson who did the original study. It doesn't mention what the critiques are or who made them. Clearly tendentious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just supply the sourcing where I ask for it thank you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Correct, but in this case the missing citation of the opposing viewpoint makes the article non-neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neither does NPOV requre that articles and authors cited in a review should be listed. Claiming citation are missing is not the same as claiming POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- No but we have this funny requirement called "NPOV" - I don't know if you've heard of it. It states that if there is critical coverage of a topic then it needs to be balancedly included, not merely mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that studies cited in a review must be listed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: A CRITIQUE. Tony Platt and Paul Takagi. Crime and Social Justice , No. 11 (spring-summer 1979), pp. 5-13
- Kevin Walby. The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of 'criminal man'. Criminal Justice August 1, 2010 10: 261-285
- 67 Brook. L. Rev. 71 (2001-2002) Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime; Rafter, Nicole Hahn
- A thirty years old source is not very impressive in today's rapidly changing biological fields. Just listing sources without explaining what is concretely supposed to POV is not helpful. For all I know you are just Googling titles without reading them. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't read these. I don't need to. You do if you want to make the article neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I you have not read them you do not know if they contain significant criticisms. If you are arguing that there are NPOV problem then burden is on you to show that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that's your strategy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot just Google some titles and claim that there are NPOV problems. You need to state concretely what is supposed to be POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Look, your own article stated that "there has been criticism", "others have criticized" etc. You just didn't have the common decency to actually describe the content of the criticism or to provide the reader with names or titles. That means that I had to google to find some (since I don't have access to the source you used to write this article, and you have already shown yourself to be unwilling to provide the relevant quotes form that material anyway). You have written a onesided piece of advocacy and now you try to make it look as if there is no criticism, even when faced with titles. Honestly it sucks to argue with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, Googling some titles without reading them and the claiming there are problems is of course no acceptable. Please answer my statement regarding the Cinderella effect above. Neither the arguments for and against are discussed here but in the main article on this which is linked to. Obviously we cannot here duplicate this long article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No that would be despiccable - so its good I first claimed there was problems and then googled the sources when you refused to provide any.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have stated that you have not read the sources you claim show problems with this article: . Please respond to my argument regarding the Cinderella effect I stated in may last reply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No I have not claimed the sources I have presented show problems with the article. The article shows problems in that it mentions the existence of criticism but does not substantiate it or provide citations to it. I provided you with the sources so that you can read them and fix that problem. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you have not read your own claimed sources, then you cannot claim they fix anything. You again avoided answering my point that in the case of the Cinderella effect there is a whole separate and long article discussing the issue which cannot be duplicated here. Thus neither the arguments for or against are mentioned but the main article referred to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this sentence is argued to problematic: "Biosocial criminology has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences" The source states "Perhaps the most commonly held stereotype of biosocial criminology among most sociological criminologists is that only biology and genetics are studied, while the potential effects of the environment are ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth." So I am not sure what the problem it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Another claimed problematic sentence: "Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is argued to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females." The source is obviously the review I cite as the source. But if you wish we specify that this is based on the parental investment theory. Not sure why this is a problem.Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well you are right that I can't promise that if you read them you will be able to tfix the POV problemss with the article, but that is a little much to ask I think, afterall I did google them for you when you in turn were being less than helpful. Take a chance and read them you may learn something you didn't know. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you have not read your own claimed sources, then you cannot claim they fix anything. You again avoided answering my point that in the case of the Cinderella effect there is a whole separate and long article discussing the issue which cannot be duplicated here. Thus neither the arguments for or against are mentioned but the main article referred to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No I have not claimed the sources I have presented show problems with the article. The article shows problems in that it mentions the existence of criticism but does not substantiate it or provide citations to it. I provided you with the sources so that you can read them and fix that problem. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have stated that you have not read the sources you claim show problems with this article: . Please respond to my argument regarding the Cinderella effect I stated in may last reply. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No that would be despiccable - so its good I first claimed there was problems and then googled the sources when you refused to provide any.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, Googling some titles without reading them and the claiming there are problems is of course no acceptable. Please answer my statement regarding the Cinderella effect above. Neither the arguments for and against are discussed here but in the main article on this which is linked to. Obviously we cannot here duplicate this long article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Look, your own article stated that "there has been criticism", "others have criticized" etc. You just didn't have the common decency to actually describe the content of the criticism or to provide the reader with names or titles. That means that I had to google to find some (since I don't have access to the source you used to write this article, and you have already shown yourself to be unwilling to provide the relevant quotes form that material anyway). You have written a onesided piece of advocacy and now you try to make it look as if there is no criticism, even when faced with titles. Honestly it sucks to argue with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot just Google some titles and claim that there are NPOV problems. You need to state concretely what is supposed to be POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that's your strategy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I you have not read them you do not know if they contain significant criticisms. If you are arguing that there are NPOV problem then burden is on you to show that.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't read these. I don't need to. You do if you want to make the article neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)