User talk:Oceansartemis

Edits in the article for Denice Denton
Hello Oceansartemis,

I noticed your recent revisions on the article regarding Denice Denton. You obviously hold a very strong opinion about certain subject-matter, but I would also like to point out that, according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, facts are a permissable part of any article so long as they appropriately pertain to the subject-matter and are notable. Your deletion of certain facts pertinent to Denton's career as chancellor at UCSC, in my opinion, amounts to a selection bias. It could be argued that Denton was a notable figure at UCSC largely because of the controversy surrounding her chancellorship there. Now, I believe these facts have a place within the context of the article, and I also believe that some of Denton's outstanding achievements also deserve to be recognized. As a side note, editing an article of someone with whom you may have been more familiar may lead to a certain personal bias and can lead to certain ethical issues, as I'm sure you're aware.

I would like to provide you with an example of some of what you said on the talk page for the article:

''Your own shallow ideas give you away ("biggest angles," "getting nationwide attention," "splattered," "whitewash"); these aren't the words of thoughtful scholars attempting to create a meaningful entry in Wikipedia. This is not a news story, it's not a titillating expose for television, and it's not your little clubhouse for exercising your opinions about what biographies should be.''

Now, I'm sure I don't need to mention to you that such statements make for some pretty harsh judgments. I do however, have a couple of questions for you: Are your edits the edits of a 'thoughtful scholar?' Without bias?

Wikipedia is not anyone's "clubhouse" is it? It's not yours. It's not mine. Rather, the point is that together we can come to an agreement through rigorous discussion of the facts and the pertinent data in order to arrive at a conclusion, which will, by necessity, develop over time. Everyone has valuable contributions they can make. This is what I believe to be the spirit of the Wiki enterprise. Naturally, we can disagree, but that's ok since we can resolve our conflicts through 'scholarly' discourse. I know you must agree with at least a good deal of these principles given your statements outlined above. I only ask that you understand that a difference of opinion on this matter does not necessarily constitute a personal attack and also that certain conclusions about people's character are not part of a 'scholarly' discourse. I'm sorry to take up your time on this issue. I know that you did not direct these statements at me (since I'm not even in the discussion on the article's talk page at this point!), but I feel strongly about this. I sincerely hope for a resolution of this issue on the best possible terms. Thanks again. --Xaliqen 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)