Talk:Otherness of childhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi

I dont see this as soap boxing. It is trying to set out a perfectly legimimate concept within the geographies of childhood. It would be soap boxing if it was saying this is right over other competing theories but it does not. It is trying to summerise a position which is being developed and which has been through critical scrutiny in the per reviewed papers which are referred to.

I dont see this enntry is different from, say, the entry on non-representational theory which states what the position of that approach is, who developed it and in what references.

You are trying to set out your concept - soapboxing. How's your NPOV? Mr Stephen 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes it is my concept but all concepts are someone's concepts. where do they come from otherwise? What is NPOV? Regards

Vegaswikian beat me to it. I see from your talk page that you have been given some time to re-cast the article. Mr Stephen 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what npov is now and get the point (but is it really possible) I have tried to modify the article.

You can add WP:NOR to why this should be speedy (Gnevin 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
He's cited Cloke and Philo, this isn't original research. If he hadn't told you who he was you'd have no issue with the article. What you are demonstrating is the anti-elitist bias which plagues wikipedia. In literaty terms this is a well written article, and inclusion of such articles should be encouraged on wikipedia. The last thing oen should do is speedily delete them. Supposed 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)