Talk:Mary Dendy Hospital

Reporting is not advocacy

When I worked up the 'thinking behind' bit of the article, the intent was to explain the thinking behind the colony and its relative isolation, and its historic significance, not to give a full exposition of the state of public opinion on the eugenics question in Edwardian England: if other editors want to write an article on that , or expand the eugenics article on that aspect, then I suggest they take that on; they will find the Royal Commission report a good place to start if they can spare the time. If not, then I suggest that they refrain from applying heavily editorialising edit tags in a non-constructive way. For a starter they might assume good faith. For the purposes of the section it is necessary to indicate how widely opinions were held ; it would help if people distinguished clearly between 'Many people think' which may well be 'weasel' territory if the sole evidence for an opinion being advocated is that many like-minded people are of a like mind and 'many people thought' which is a statement about the prevalence of an opinion at some point in the past cf 'many people think that James II intended to rule as an absolute monarch and put down Protestantism' and 'many people thought that James II intended to rule as an absolute monarch and put down Protestantism' A similar misconception seems to explain a subsequent reference to 'editorialising' notes ; those notes are attached to the explanation of the opinions held by others and constitute a further explanation of those views. They are not intended to express any POV on what people should have thought in 1911 or on what they should think in 2011 on whatever the current equivalent issues are.Rjccumbria (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)