On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:23, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi
<peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in
awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no
serious problems that I see.
Have you compared the German articles (at least using online translation)? It's not
an ivory tower philosophy discussion, it got a lively real world controversy with
activists from the disability rights movements and other (mostly far left) organisations
trying and often succeeding to prevent Singer speaking in Germany (and elsewhere). A
stream of articles and books published against and in defense of Singer?
And while I have no overview about the situation in the US, there seem to
be parallels, e.g.
http://www.thearclink.org/news/article.asp?ID=426
Peter
The controversy about Singer's ideas has definitely spilled outside of
philosophy journals (where emotions don't run so hot). I don't read
German, but the article on en.wiki covers that controversy pretty
well, from what I can tell. I'm not sure what problem you are
suggesting en.Wikipedia has, or what should be done about it, on this
point.
- causa sui
Okay, I looked at [[de:Peter Singer]] using the Google Chrome
translation tool. It's coming through as pigeon English ("It remains
unclear for some critics of the status does not articulate or later
only to articulate interests.") but I'm not getting the sense that the
public protests are better covered in de.Wiki than en.Wiki. The
section at [[Peter_Singer#Criticism_of_Singer]] seems more detailed
and historical, and includes a more balanced representation of
Singer's response to the controversies that result from a second-hand
reading of his more sophisticated and well-developed ethical system.
If there is content more comprehensible to German readers that should
be added to the English article, then this is indeed a {{sofixit}}
problem.
Further, after a closer reading of [[Peter Singer]], I really strain
to detect any "liberal bias" in this article. Although reasonable
suggestions for improvement could easily be made in various places, I
seriously doubt that any will come from Conservapedia authors: we
should expect that the only content that would satisfy them would be
polarizing histrionics about the evil demon Peter Singer and his
baby-eating liberal drones. Anything less, in their view, is "liberal
bias" -- see the above (reality has a liberal bias, etc) for an
explanation as to why.
Remember that the primary goal of a Conservapedia article is to remind
the reader about why conservatism is so great, why liberalism is so
bad, to reinforce conservative viewpoints and to produce angry
judgment while terminating independent thought and investigation. If
you want to know the full sum of what Conservapedia editors think you
need to know about Peter Singer, look no further:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Peter_Singer
- causa sui