[Cz-biology] [Czinternal-constable] [Cz-philosophy] [Cz-health-sci] Abortion article

[thom simmons]

All

Matt has restored it to the talk page at
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion

I was going to put it in cold storage. Someone may still want to do that.

Thomas Simmons
Constable


On 27/10/07 02:13, "Larry Sanger" <sanger at citizendium.org> wrote:

> All,
>  
> I'm sorry to have to point this out, because I admire and am grateful for the
> excellent work of our constables, certainly including John, Thom, and Steve.
> But as the issue has come up, I really should explain something.
>  
> In short, only the most obvious and uncontroversial instances of the
> neutrality policy is a ground for deletion without editor instruction.  If you
> will examine our Article Deletion Policy
>  
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Article_Deletion_Policy
>  
> you'll find that the grounds on which the Constabulary could delete a "biased"
> article, on their own recognizance, is this: "it would be obvious and
> uncontroversial to virtually all constables that it is not an encyclopedia
> article; see what Citizendium articles are not
> <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:What_Citizendium_articles_are_not> ."
>  
> Since I haven't read the abortion article in question, I don't know whether it
> satisfies that fairly high standard (and so I have no opinion on that
> question), but I do believe the Constabulary should examine the text and
> discuss whether it does.  If not, the article should be restored and the
> matter passed onto exclusive editor purview.
>  
> In any case, the Constabulary should make a copy available to concerned
> editors who would like to review the Constabulary's decision.
>  
> Moreover, we should in any case move biased articles to "Cold Storage," here:
>  
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Cold_Storage
>  
> instead of deleting them outright.
>  
> On a theoretical note, I make two observations.  First, it is well-advised to
> allow constables to delete articles.  The Constabulary is considerably more
> "nimble" than editors, because they are more active and, as you see here,
> deeply concerned with matters of good behavior.  They can usually discuss and
> act within a few hours, and if "emergency" action needs to be taken, there is
> usually a constable on hand to take action within minutes.  This is all good.
> Second, however, it is very important that we try to distinguish, as well as
> we can, behavioral problems from editorial problems, and that we assign the
> editorial problems only to editors and not to constables.  This isn't easy,
> but it's important that we try.  Just as the Constabulary acts as a check on
> "editors gone haywire" (not something that happens very often, of course),
> editors act as a check on "over-zealous constables."  I think that the
> resulting division and balance of authority will serve us well in the long
> run.
>  
> Also, putting on my philosopher hat, for what it's worth, the theory behind
> the abortion controversy is one of the main topics in applied ethics, and is
> standardly taught by philosophers in ethics courses, in the U.S. at least.
>  
> Thanks to all--
> Larry
>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  cz-philosophy-bounces at mail.citizendium.org
>> [mailto:cz-philosophy-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of John  Hymers
>> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 7:53 AM
>> To: Dr. S N  Sarbadhikari
>> Cc: cz-biology at mail.citizendium.org;  cz-philosophy at mail.citizendium.org;
>> Harvey Frey; John Stephenson;  cz-health-sci at mail.citizendium.org;
>> czinternal-constable at mail.citizendium.org
>> Subject: Re:  [Cz-philosophy] [Cz-health-sci] Abortion article
>> 
>> although  i am sure your judgement was correct, i would still love to read
>> this piece  ...
>> cheers, john
>> 
>>  
>> On 10/26/07, Dr. S N  Sarbadhikari <  supten at amrita.edu
>> <mailto:supten at amrita.edu> > wrote:
>>> I  agree with Harvey
>>> Supten
>>> 
>>>> >     I don't see  why it is necessary to "do" anything with it (except
>>>> >  perhaps
>>>> > to add citations to referenced  philosphers).
>>>> >
>>>> >     The author has done an  excellent job of showing both sides, meaning
>>>> > that
>>>> > extremists  on both sides will be annoyed. There is no way an article on
>>>> a 
>>>> >  controversial topic can be written without annoying someone. Let it  be.
>>>> >
>>>> > Harvey
>>>> > =========================
>>>> > Harvey  S. Frey MD PhD Esq.
>>>> > hsfrey at harp.org   <mailto:hsfrey at harp.org>   www.harp.org
>>>> <http://www.harp.org>
>>>> >  =========================
>>>> >
>>>> > ----- Original Message  -----
>>>> > From: "John Stephenson" <  citizendium at linguistics.org.uk
>>>> <mailto:citizendium at linguistics.org.uk> >
>>>> > To: <Cz-biology at mail.citizendium.org>;
>>>> >  <Cz-health-sci at mail.citizendium.org
>>>> <mailto:Cz-health-sci at mail.citizendium.org> >;
>>>> > <cz-philosophy at mail.citizendium.org>
>>>> >  Cc: <czinternal-constable at mail.citizendium.org
>>>> <mailto:czinternal-constable at mail.citizendium.org> >
>>>> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:08 PM
>>>> > Subject:  [Cz-health-sci] Abortion article
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>> >> To biologists,  health scientists and philosophers (copied to
>>>>> >> constabulary in  case of future problems),
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You might want to take a  look at the Abortion article, started by new
>>>>> >> author Peter Whale.  I really don't know what to do or where to begin
>>>>> >> with  it.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Abortion
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>  He has assigned it to the philosophy workgroup.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>  John.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cz-philosophy mailing list
>>> Cz-philosophy at mail.citizendium.org
>>> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-philosophy
>>> <http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-philosophy>
>> 
>> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-biology/attachments/20071027/45930dec/attachment.html