"Moved from  on 19 October 2005 

 ==Precautionary Principle== 

 I'm finding your continual revision of the Precautionary Principle to be biased towards putting the principle in a wholly positive light and making it seem as if it has been around for centuries and is a widely accepted best practice.  What I'm working for is to make the definition as neutral (and contemporary) as possible, while relegating more controversial interpretations and connections to the criticism or other sections.   

 You seem to want to link the precautionary principle to medical precepts and legal standards that actually are not related and also preceded the principle by thousands of years... 
 quote: 

 ""Methodologies related to the precautionary principle may also be found in medicine (""first, do no harm"") and law (convict when guilt is shown ""beyond a reasonable doubt"").""   

 They have nothing to do with the precautionary principle.  It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials  if you want to make this connection, show show significant documentation.  It is not being applied in the courtroom either.  If you want to say that it grew out of those philosphies, then do so in your ""medicine and law"" section, but not in the definition  and again, provide some references for your theories.  You cannot, however, say that doctors (including those working for pharmaceutical companies) or judges are applying the precautionary principle, because they are not.   

 Secondly, deleting the section on the active implementation of the precautionary principle is also incorrect.  I provided documentation to the 6 principles that have been defined by various organizations as the core of the principle; they are defined by organizations that believe in the principle, so it's not perjorative.  You say this in your edit summary: 

 ""preventative anticipation"" is a pointless neologism; it's nearly always interpretable as the standard PP) 

 Yet, when you delete it, the definition in the article only describes a passive interpretation of the principle  only ""it is better to avoid that action"" and not it is better to take action now than be sorry later.   

 A couple of style points: 

 1.) many of your edits have had little or no edit summary (sometimes when they are significant deletions, additions, or revisions)  

 2.) I think it defeats the point of defining a term when you feel the need to insert pithy colloquialisms into the first line or two of a definition.  We are trying to give the reader a balanced and nuanced view of a term that has a significant amount of controversy and divergence of interpretations.  Quickie substitutions like ""it's a generalized application of the Hippocratic Oath"" do not serve this purpose well. 

 eemcee 

 ==Akhenaten== 
 Hi, what was your problem with the sentence ""Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that.""? That's an accurate description of things, no? (The rest looks good, by the way - the page needed a major cleanup, and it had been on my list to do for a long time, I just never found the time.)   

 PS: WIkipedia style is to reply on the talk page of the person who wrote to you, so they don't have keep keep an eye on the talk pages of everyone they have written messages to. 

  
 #Hi there, and welcome. Please provide a source for your recent addition on Akhenaten being black. (Otherwise, it looks like original research.)   

 When has one asked for a source to prove that Julius Caeser was white? Or that Confucius was Chinese in appearance?  
 What you ask is not out of objectivity is it? Please explain your position. Do not remove my edit until then please thanks. -Zaphnathpaaneah 

 Wikipedia's official policy on original research states that in some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events or Akhenaten's face). 

 ==2112== 
 On the California electricity crisis - agree that there could be more and better discussion of role of energy companies (but note NPOV issues as seen in discussion on the Talk page there), including Enron. But how about adding the context instead of removing the statement, which was hardly so out-of-context or obscure as to need removing?   

 - 

 The paragraph: 

 ""Enron CEO Ken Lay mocked these efforts to thwart the practices of