License tagging for File:Exitweblogo.GIF
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
Your changes at Euthanasia
Hi. You made three changes to the lead at Euthanasia. I removed one, since it puts the lead at odds with the content it is meant to summarize, but the other two also seem borderline out of place in the lead. Can you give some more thought as to whether they might fit better into the body of the article? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you clarify? I added some references that allow the reader to explore different definitions, which seems important, though it would be inappropriate to quote the whole of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry in the article. The change that I can see you rolled back was my addition of the word "often." I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but there is a disjunct here: the Wiki page defines types of euthanasia according to classical bioethics. Perhaps "usually" would be better? The small problem is that, in the countries where euthanasia (as opposed to assisted suicide) is practiced, this classification is not only not used but considered misleading (I am talking principally of the Netherlands, and added a reference to their law in English.) So we have to ask, is it a responsible Wiki entry when the legally defined practice and the theoretical definitions, however longstanding and technically interesting, are at odds with each other? In defence of the position before I made that small change, I would say that the types of euthanasia as described are the common parlance iin most countries where euthanasia is not allowed. So I don't have any strong objection to your revision. Maybe a footnote to the effect that it is a common categorization, rather than one used in law where euthanasia is practiced? (Best to check the wording for Belgium and Luxembourg statutes before including those of course.) Kind regards.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the whole of my addition there (Dutch definition) to be included in a footnote - at least it is maybe a bit more authoritative than simply quoting the BBC quoting what they understand the Dutch law to be.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. It was both the addition of a citation in the lead to support a non-controversial statement and the additional text about the Dutch law. Thanks for considering my input. Just to be clear, though, it really is just an observation from a fellow editor and you are welcome to take it or leave it. I'm glad you found my comment useful.
- My concern with "often" was twofold; we should always avoid wp:weasel words and the content which that sentence summarizes does not say "often" in any way. Weasel words soften a phrase to make it more acceptable, but at the same time result in an unsupported claim. By saying "often" here we suggest that some use different classification systems, without saying who uses those other systems or what that other systems might be. If the text in the body expressed that there were several systems of classification of which this was slightly more popular, then "often" would be justified. The text which is summarized simply says this is the classification system and the lead should match that.
- You allude to a difference between some legal classification and the philosophical one. I think we should only discuss the scientific classification in Wikipedia unless whichever article we are discussing is about how euthanasia is dealt with under the various legal systems. If, as sometimes in the case, there are multiple scientific systems in common use by different scholars, then we should discuss those in the body of the article and summarize the fact in the lead. Anyway, that's my opinion. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly disagree with you and even though I'm not entirely happy with your use of 'non-controversial' (the existence of other classifications suggests they are not) or 'scientific' (both philosophy and the law are in the humanities: one is not more scientific than the other) I only have a limited amount of time that I can contribute to the page. So if you feel you can improve on it please do so, that's ok with me, though I ask you to bear my comments in mind. To underline my point, I think the popular definitions of euthanasia, since they have been dispensed with by Netherlands in favour of a classification that they find more patient-centred, are unfairly biased. The Netherlands, as the founding country of euthanasia in practice, should I feel at least be given a little more cognizance. They are accepted there by the medical and legal professions and that is no small thing. So what 'euthanasia' is the Wiki page talking about? A theoretical distinction from teh Nazi use of the term?? Overall I would personally prefer the page overhauled to explain the szemantic history and how the terms are still used but more in theory (especially by countries prohibiting euthanasia) and in the vernacular than in practice. The term euthanasia doesn't apear in British Law either. In other words, it is largely a theoretical one applied ad hoc to theoretical situations, or situations that are properly known (medically and legally) under other names. This might not please supporters or even a few opponents, as the terms have considerable rhetorical appeal in the newsprint: but Wiki should not be about newsprint terminology. These blunt classifications strike me personally as a little outdated, although they still serve a purpose in elementary bioethics discussions. The Dutch ones seem a bit more accurate. I have maybe overstated the case a little here, but someone sometime will maybe have a go at a more thorough examination. I notice on the talk page, there are some suggestions for a more refined philosophical analysis.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Parzivalamfortas (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)