Talk:Politicizing Science (book)

If Gough's views are partisan, e.g., "conservative", then perhaps this article could be balanced with criticism of his views. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a POV Fork of Politicization_of_science
From someone who is on Arbcomm probation for creating POV Forks Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2. It's utterly transparent what you're trying to do Ed: You failed to get your content into Politicization_of_science which redefined the term according to the archconservative Hoover Institute so now you want to redefine the term in another subarticle. No. And no to any further disruption too. Your proposed article is more appropriate for Conservapedia where you're an admin, make it there. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."


 * So perhaps you could explain how this article avoids NPOV guidelines. For example, you might say what viewpoints it highlights or avoids, and whether these are positive or negative.


 * Failing that, I think it's more likely that you are trying to avoid viewpoints and facts about the politicization of science. You seem to regard the Bush administration or conservatives generally as the only ones ever to politicize science. You deleted historical examples of the Catholic Church & Galileo, as well as the USSR and Lysenkoism.


 * I only picked the Hoover Institute / Marshall Institute quote because (1) it seemed scholarly and objective; and (2) it showed up in the first 10 Google hits when I was looking for a general definition.


 * If there is a reason you disagree with Michael Gough's definition of "manipulating science for political gain" please say what it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)