User talk:Adam Cuerden

Blatant POV pushing isn't welcome here any more than at any other wikipedia/ Please try to phrase what you are saying in a way that is not so clearly an opinion, see WP:NPOV. Thanks. Blockinblox - talk 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis

I learned, in my history class, that it was just ships (as 20 ton missiles can't be carried on planes). I'll change that bit, thanks for spotting it!
Gwib^-(talk)- 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Adam, good luck and thanks. If we are going to link to evolution (simple) page it certainly needed improvement. In fact, it looks so much better. I felt that GA status was necessary for the Introduction to Evolution page as a representation of the Evolution article; so it would be nice to have similar results here. I have no idea how to make evolution simple. I'm not even sure I did so good of a job making it accessable. However, I will wait to all is done and throw in my 2cents worth of suggestions here. Is GA status obtained in a similar manner in simple wiki? Random Replicator --71.77.211.77 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Sorry, but the version you're reverting to has a very negative POV. Phrases lie "Homeopathy is a form of medicine that, according to scientific studies, almost certainly doesn't work", and "...add it to more water, shake that, and continue to do that over and over." are biased and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have any more concerns, please discuss them, instead than reverting. --Werdan7^{T @} 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can see how aaccurate descriptions of The Lancet's position paper and the exact definition of succussion and dilution are very POV. I'm sorry if describing things accurately is a problem here. Silly me, I should have known. Adam Cuerden (talk)

Whether the article is supported by the sources is a whole different issue (that I will be looking at later), but the words the article is using are not neutral. Even if that is an accurate description, in can be restated in better words, that don't sound dismissive. Also, can you show me where this "exact definition" comes from? --Werdan7^{T @} 05:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I don't know much about homeopathy. But the way it's worded is certainly POV. Also, I didn't add "the less effective" part. I was going to add that homeopathy is scientifically implausible, until I was edit conflict-ed.--TBC 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when did I say that "it's not core to homeopathic beliefs"? I haven't even touched the second and third paragraphs yet. ;) --TBC 05:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back, since a lot of the refs were removed. I apologize if some of your edits were removed in the process. I've cleaned much of it up; hopefully it's more NPOV now.--TBC 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I hope I don't mean to "bring up the past" or anything or upset you or anything, but I've just noticed that you've began here on Simple exactly six months after the Matthew Hoffman case was closed, when your sysop tools would have been restored. Is it just a coincidence or was this intentional? Cassandra ^talk 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hello, you have re-written a paragraph in Evolution, saying that the evolutionary theory was used to justify slavery; while this was certainly the case, would it be hard for you to find a reference that supports this? - Evolution is a VGA, and I think it would be a good idea to source claims made in the article. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if it's not obvious, my reason for adding that paragraph is just to make it clear that people were trying to make all sorts of things support racism back then; evolution isn't inherently racist, it just got hijacked like a lot of things were. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have time to expand on it, but I am sure de Gobineau wrote something on that; in general, Social Darwinism (as proposed by Herbert Spencer, survival of the fittest may propose something; Other hints: en:Houston Stewart Chamberlains the foundatdations of the 19th century; have you looked at [:en:Scientific racism]]? - Also look at en:Pierre-André_Taguieff and en:Race (classification of human beings) for ideas.--Eptalon (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]