Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) →Recovered memory: continuing |
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
:You need to credit the authors of the cz article on the talk page, at a minimum. However, the article ''should'' be first incorporated into [[repressed memory]], and the relevant points split out. Hoaving ''parallel'' articles with ''some'' (but not all) of the same information is bad form. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
:You need to credit the authors of the cz article on the talk page, at a minimum. However, the article ''should'' be first incorporated into [[repressed memory]], and the relevant points split out. Hoaving ''parallel'' articles with ''some'' (but not all) of the same information is bad form. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:And consensus can change, but there's no evidence that it ''has''. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
:And consensus can change, but there's no evidence that it ''has''. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::And are you suggesting "consensus = Rubin's opinion"? Seriously? -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:19, 7 April 2010
. I will reply on this page, under your post. |
|
Status
To Do list (from July block)
- Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
- Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.
Vandalism on the "Life University" page
User 8.17.32.194 has so far twice vandalized the Life University page. He is deleting extensive portions of referenced information that is important to understand the history and political orientation of the institution. He has not posted any reasons for the changes in the discussion section and leaves the article with a biased POV in favor of the school. So far I've had to revert the article twice to undo his vandalism on October 6th and 7th. Please do something to stop it.~~AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.104.152.8 (talk • contribs) 23:40, October 7, 2009 Arthur Rubin 23:40, October 7, 2009
The Congress vs. Congress
So you believe the Constitution is grammatically incorrect when it refers to "the Congress" (e.g., here)? SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe the Constitution has little contact with grammatical correctness, as seen in the discussion of the 2nd Amendment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletions from 9/11 conspiracy theories article
Hello there, I notice that you removed two referenced and seemingly topic-appropriate items from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here is the first one you removed: "But some of those questioning the government's findings don't consider themselves extremists. "They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."(CBS News reference at http://web.archive.org/web/20071224135836/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml Here is the second one: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation into the causes of the three World Trade Center building collapses." (Washington Times reference at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns "According to the group's website, 1114 architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition." (A&E for 911 Truth home page reference at http://www.ae911truth.org/ You claimed the first was removed because it was unsourced, but there is a news source. You claimed the second gives the group A&E for 911 Truth undue weight, but that was the only group mentioned in the referenced news article. There is a discussion in process on the article's discussion page. Please take part in this discussion before removing any more referenced material. Thank you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out before, the first semi-quote is not in the referenced article, and may be a BLP violation. Even if it's not a BLP violation, it's not referenced.
- For the second, the groups characterization of its membership as being "architects and engineers" is not adequately sourced, even if it were notable, and I can't determine if the Washington Times article is "news" or a political commentary. It looks more like political commentary, making it also not suitable as a reference. There are a number of reasons why it shouldn't be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
CO2 Science
[1] It`s not the source, it`s an entire section devoted to three or four lines of text, all i did was remove the section and put it at the bottom of the lede mark nutley (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex Jones
Dear Arthur,
1 Reason for this note Recently I added to text on Alex Jones, which (I am postulating) you rescinded, stating it did not appear to be constructive. I think we are all interested in the truth. Please tell me what was untrue about what I wrote.
2 Instant Messaging on WikiPedia? It would be helpful if WikiPedia had a way for a recipient to immediately reply to a post someone made (in this case, you). This is the first time I have ever received a comment, and had reason to reply to someone. I was able to track your user page and to post this message here.
3 Quality and Style of Information, _Functionality_, Truth Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but this authoritarian style is, most probably, going to adhere to the most commonly accepted truths, including rewrites of history, even if Wikipedia includes among its subjects such luminaries as Noam Chomsky. In absence of information - or even awareness that there exists controversies - a pupil is likely to swallow whatever is put before him at face value, without even the courtesy of being able to make up his mind. I am beginning to view and make use of discussion pages. I have not yet seen if the Discussion pages are used to keep up with elements of 'controversy'. It occurs to me that, together with any pronouncements, if alternate points of view are not presented, then any media is tantamount to propaganda. I read that you are Libertarian, as I am sure most of us are, who are true and old supporters of the Internet. Altho I have not read up on the perspectives of those who created WikiPedia, I would assume statistically that they probably are, as well. And I am gathering a perspective on the format of WikiPedia, and as this awareness continues, I see omissions (user-generated content), as well as constant and consistent bias, slanted towards the status quo. As we can see with the recent banking disasters, just because someone has a lot of money, or is 'accepted', or mainstream, this 'might' does not make right. History validates this, altho not necessarily the textbooks that are rewritten.
Are we interested the truth? Is Wikipedia interested in the truth? As it involves more than one person (more than just me), I cannot answer these questions when plural people are involved.
Even if we are committed to the truth, problems ensue. If a person's awareness is purely academic, he is merely a dis-interested reporter, without any actual knowledge of the fact(s). I think both of us would say that a carpenter is more qualified to speak on the subject of carpentry, than a person who has only read or heard of or discussed carpentry. An academic, a mere, student should not be the one to dictate to the general public what a subject is. This is pure speculation. ("Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." This is a sad statement, but largely relevant. It reflects the level of our remuneration and respect for teaching.)
I have several backgrounds. One of them is medicine/health. I have close to 40 years experience in what works in these regards. Yet, my experience in medicine/health will not be the same as another's, especially if he is only 'mainstream'. For example, the AMA has been convicted of fraud. It is obvious they have a confirmed bias, and are something else other than 'scientific'. Based on this, we can clearly confirm corruption of science. Most doctors are not real students, because they are not involved in researching the medical systems that have been employed in centuries or millennia past. In this sense, they are indeed only 'practicing', and have 'opinions'. Also, in strict truth, they promote 'remedies', and do not admit to 'cures', nor do they allow others the First Amendment to speak about 'cures'.
Arthur, in these many years I see what works, and what does not work. I have been interested in the Merovingian's 'Why?' Looking for answers, I have found them. I was compelled to look past the veil of mediocrity and ignorance. In doing this, I found my answers. There was no other way. Either I accepted and allowed and promoted the non-answers of the currently-in-force (literally) medical profession, and their abysmal track record, or I got down to brass tacks and did some research. I chose to find out. Abraham Lincoln made remarks to the effect that what you search for, you will find. Without searching and remaining aware of a possibility, it is unlikely you will be aware of the real meaning and import of something, even if it does cross your path. Knowing what works, and being able to do it, gives one power. This type of power is also used by the media forces (one can add AMA to that list) who are an entity existing to perpetuate itself. But this is not valid if they harm others. The media forces are in business to make money. Thus, they are materialistic in nature. Materialism, the making of money, is their #1 objective, and media is the means they use to do it. Vision-Mission-Objective. Motive-Means-Opportunity. Manipulation is what they 'know' how to do, and keep themselves in power by doing it. They are successful by their own definition. But what if one does not define 'success' as having the same statistical sicknesses and disease as the average person in the population? What if one does not desire to be 'mediocre'? What if one desires 'health'? This is not taught in the textbooks. In the textbooks, lots of little facts are doled out, as by rote. Yet, the big picture is left up to the student to piece together. But the student is so busy continuing on with the prevailing winds and dishing out the popular version of drugs and 'interventions' and 'invasiveness' that he takes little time to question the whether the 'authority' he has on supposedly 'good authority', or good faith, promulgated by his inherited teaching is, in fact, supreme, or only a statistical truth, all dependent on subsuming ONE set of assumptions.
Humans sit in a crossroads. Most of what they know is rooted in the shallow past, as shallow as the grave they shall soon occupy. Allopathic doctors occupy this grave even sooner than the common populace. Perforce, they do not have a functional handle on health at all. Experience shows they do not empirically and scientifically conform to the dictates of health. They are thus examples and proponents of a different system than pure health. So, do they speak from an advanced experience of health? No, they demonstrably do not. If fact, they demonstrate the opposite. This is not a conundrum. This is quid pro quo. Nature proves the thing of itself. It is what it is.
Arthur, I don't know you. So I can't claim to understand you. I have found, however, that I can trust Nature, if I trust myself to become more aware of it. I would say that this principle works for everyone. And I also say that, unless you can do something, you are not qualified to make pronouncements about it. I specifically say this because I have recently seen the debates about amateurism versus professionalism. And, as you can see by this note, I believe those who can do something should be allowed to speak about it, whether it is motorcycle design and repair or foreign travel or any discipline. I also think that it is not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask questions about the veracity or consistency of a group of people following a given discipline, as to what kind of efficacy that discipline has upon its followers.
Track record is track record. With regard to physical health, most children (and I include adults who are/were still children) have not done much in the way of scientific experimentation with regard to the input = output equation of diet. In science, we believe in the equations of cause and effect. Yet, how many have actually done serious experimentation on this subject? As far as the human population is concerned, we have the Merck Manual to give us statistics. Sad statistics these are. Clearly, consumption of animal and synthetic fats builds up on the vascular system, causes circulation problems, heart problems, lung problems; the leading causes of death. Yet, your average family doctor does not follow the dictates of Primum Non Nocere, causing no harm, and does not explain to his patients the damage done thru consumption of animal products. Neither does he recommend to stop this practice, and clean up his patients' lives. Why? Would there be a conflict of interest against his profession, if his clients were healthy? What would his $500,000 tuition be worth, if his clients had no need to come to him? If his clients were well, he'd be out of a job. If you are aware of the status of doctors in China centuries ago, you would be aware that they were paid only if their patients were NOT sick. Doctors were paid on the basis of performance, and were NOT paid if their methods fail. These days, it exactly the opposite. Doctors make money when their patients are sick. This is designing to fail, inviting corruption. This is negative science. The incentives are all wrong. It is a system designed to fail. This system follows the law of entropy, as do the doctors that practice it, who are demonstrably worse than average in the aspect of health. One gets what he deserves.
I have heard song writers, and many ordinary people say, "We are not meant to know." If we are not meant to learn and grow, then why are we alive, if we are only meant to suffer? If there is no way out, why should we even try? Why not cut your loses and give up now, ahead of the game?
Yes, while entropy is, indeed, a force to be reckoned with, nevertheless, if there is something else than fatalism and chaos in the world, then we must strive for it. Since the human being is clearly a construct following a higher Order or organization, then progress, if not complexity, is possible. If this kind of success is possible, it stands to reason that an even higher level of success is reachable. If it is reachable, then development demands we must strive for it. Alfred Korzybski, b1879-07-03, writes of 3 levels of Organization, plus more can be inferred. Plants are Energy Binders. Animals are Territory Binders. Humans are Time Binders. This is not speculative. Plants, animals, humans actually DO these things. So we are not talking theory or mere academics, here. We are not talking about first order logic or first order predicate calculus of possibilities, but rather Lambda Calculus, functionality, what works.
In my years of following health, I have learned. Where once I was aware of what allopaths were capable of doing at the time (which has not functionally or substantially changed over these decades), I have since become aware of better methods. You can't stand still in awareness and grow. Effort has to be made. I've been interested in making that effort. While in grade school and high school I moved forward at the rate of two years every year, as measured by the national scholastic tests. I have not stopped. Modern 'medical' science does not progress at this rate. Not even computing science moves forward this rapidly. In decades past, I was following artificial intelligence together with psychology and computing science and medical research, and speculating on simulation languages. I found that the human functionality in psychology can be described as programs that can be modeled in lambda calculus. Thus written as an equation, they can be more clearly understood. I have since picked up neurolingustic programming, which was developed during the same time I was working on developing functional models of psychology. I developed a successor to NLP, but found it functionally a more powerful technology than the average self- or group-motivated person could be safely entrusted to use. Only the more developed ecology aspect of this system am I free to openly talk about.
An exception to the 'sitting still' rule is meditation. To this end, I'd like to point out Walter Russell. If you've not read him, I suggest you do. Same with Noam Chomsky. Read most or all of everything they wrote will expectedly serve you well.
So my two cents are: If you know what you are doing, you can do it. And if you can do it, then you can talk about it. Only in that position are you in the position of being able to teach. As Randolph Stone said, "What works, works!" I'd go with that!
Let me know what the official policies are with respect to WikiPedia. I'm sure on this end that we'd all like to know and understand. Perhaps there are other alternatives to WikiPedia that are broader in scope and encourage more collateral understanding. Please point them out.
If I can be any help to you in your quest for growth, please let me know. As I am rather new to being involved in WikiPedia on a formal level, I have not posted my interests, and have not even been to my user page. Perhaps I will figure this out in short order. I haven't taken any tutorials, as yet. Perhaps you can give me some suggestions or links?
I look forward to the future development of WikiPedia and other developing models.
I hope I will get a response to any message you will write, as long as I am logged in to WikiPedia, as I would very much like to hear your reply.
Regards ~Mardana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardana (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, I can't write as eloquently as you. But there may be some misunderstandings on the purpose of Wikipedia that I may be able to help you with. Also, remember that I can't speak for Wikipedia; there are specific policies, guidelines, and interpretations of such, but most are obtained by WP:CONSENSUS. There are a few policy directives from the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and Wikipedia's legal counsel, but everything else is determined by consensus.
- Wikipedia is not interested in WP:TRUTH, but in what can be verified. In the case of what you wrote in Alex Jones (radio host), I believe it to be untrue, but, more important to Wikipedia, you have not provided a reliable source for the information. (I should add that I also contribute to the Open Directory Project, which was, at least until recently, part of Time Warner.) Also, your noting the contributions as "WP:MINOR" seems inappropriate.
- As for your contributions to acupunture, your sources do not appear to be what we call "reliable".
- I normally reply on my own page, so you will not be informed of my reply unless you add this page to your watchlist. I'll issue a {{talkback}} note to your page so you will be informed this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Twin Towers
I'm sorry, I did not know there were other instances of total progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings. Can you please provide me with your examples? - Tzaquiel (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what is this relevant to? That's not the false material you're adding this time. That material was of questionable relevance, but not false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I intended to only remove your edits of 09:07 and 09:15, not those of 09:23 and 09:24. I'll work on putting that back, although I think the relevance is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Obliged. I see how the language of my first edit could have been taken out of context. - Tzaquiel (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Salon did comment on these contributions
Hi Arthur, I'm commenting on your edit summary here, rather than the article's talkpage, b/c I assume this is just an oversight on your part. Anyways the cited Salon.com article does specifically mention Exxon funding the Center: "The father and son team of Sherwood and Craig Idso hail from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., which has also received money from ExxonMobil," from page 2 of the article. Yilloslime TC 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake. It does explain why I don't consider salon reliable, but I won't fight the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
350.org
Time to do something about this idiot? Has been trolling the premises a bit too much, and the blatant advocacy is not acceptable (imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, could you folks take a look at the CASA of Maryland section on my talk page? I reverted Rahmspeed's edits because I felt they were not NPOV. I also expanded his Messenger comment on 350.org to improve NPOV (although I am fine with deleting the whole paragraph for non-notability). I am fairly new at Wiki and am confused about whether Rahmspeed is now 98.141.74.65, and what to do about his POV additions. I have to logoff now for several hours, and will check back later. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was mistaken on the Messenger comment, it's on Colin Beavan, by 99.190.91.251. Bento00 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- At least that guy does have some connections to 350.org (mentions it on his blog), which unfortunately cannot be said of some of the others that are 350 spammed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
100%
Hello - you have removed my addition to the talk page which amazes me. Surely talk page contributions should, unless spam / vandalism etc, be free from such censorship? As a mathematician you should see that what I submitted was factually correct and a valid point of view, not to say demonstrably correct. DesmondW (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Talk page contributions may be removed if they aren't related to improving the article; musings on the subject are not helpful. (And your comments are 100% wrong, anyway. 125% increase has a perfectly good meaning. )— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I simply cannot believe your high handed attitude, talk contributions are for discussion and mine were both related and relevant. Removing my contribution simply because you don't agree is vandalism and against the Wiki ethos "Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff" so you cannot individually decide whether my submission is related or not.
Now I will demonstrate in even simpler terms to you, as a mathematician, why what I am saying is correct and the common usage, as so often the case, is misleading.
125% does have a common meaning, which I do not dispute, but it is incorrect usage of percentiles and this should be reflected in the page.
If a value decreases from 1,000 to 100, whether this be millions of turnover or any other measure, then this would be described as 90% decrease, which is correct and surely beyond dispute. If the value then increases from 100 back to 1,000 then the percentile ****must**** be the same, in other words 90% (900 / 1000). This is not opinion, it is logic. Percentiles should always be calculated using the larger number as the base.
Unfortunately common usage differs because advertisers want to use the bigger percentage since it sounds better, "50% increase" sounds bigger than "33 1/3%" growth and so we continue to be misled.
Please reinstate my original submission and I will enlarge it to try and make the meaning clearer to everyone. Your "125%" for example should, properly, be described as 20% growth (25 / 125).DesmondW (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I simply cannot believe your high handed attitude, talk contributions are for discussion and mine were both related and relevant. Removing my contribution simply because you don't agree is vandalism and against the Wiki ethos "Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff" so you cannot individually decide whether my submission is related or not.
- That's wrong, and you should know it. Your claim that percentages should be calculated using the larger number is unsupported in both common usage and in mathematics. It may be an alternative formulation, as your distinction between "50% increase" (correct) and "33 1/3% growth" (generally incorrect, using standard terms). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
God morgon.
Jag förstår din oro, men din felaktig bedömning av den nordamerikanska unionen bygger på dina falska amerikanska känslor. Som jag påpekade, är du som talar engelska, vilket är olyckligt, men för att underlätta din omräkning till svenska språket, jag ska hjälpa dig att anpassa sig till befälhavaren språket. Något sätt, finns det inget sätt att du vet vad du pratar om. Förhållandet med roboten skall bekräftas bara tills du accepterar att din inblandning i den svenska affärer inte kommer att förbli ostraffade. Detta är din enda varning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan (talk • contribs) 00:58, March 23, 2010
- That looks like a threat to me.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
trig edit
Could you explain why my edit was not totally correct on the trig article, just for my own clarity.Bgreise24 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It has to do with the difference between the period of a periodic function and a period. If
- for all x, then T is a period of f. If T is the smallest such positive number, then T is the period of f. Hence, 2π is a period of all elementary trigonometric functions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
AH, I see. So technically speaking 2pi is a period of tangent. I just thought it should be made clear that it was not THE period. I'm glad we came to a wording that satisfies both scenarios. That was my first edit btw, so thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.115.136 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Re:Is Wikipedia considered non commercial as far as uploading CC images?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
42 (number) page
Hi Arthur, Could you please explain why this reference and link to source were removed? I read your message about my "experiment" with Wikipedia, however, the information I submitted is true, relevant and verifiable by source. I realize that this is my first contribution, but your edit message seemed a bit of a canned response and I was hoping you could perhaps clarify your reasoning for its irrelevance. Thank you. Dustin Thacker Dlthacker (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- It may have been verifiable, but
- Not verified, as the source given is a blog apparently written by the father. The source clearly fails WP:RS, and, as it relates to a presumably living person and seems contentious, immediately deletable, per WP:BLP.
- Not notable that a non-notable person (no offense intended) has a middle name of "42".
- Trivia about 42 weeks of pregnancy and the digit sum of the birth date would not be notable even about the person in question.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
R&I mediation
Arthur, FYI: I refactored your comment about Brian Pesta being fringe. I have a strict 'no commenting on other editors' rule in that mediation (and it is sorely needed) so while I'm glad you've come to participate, I do need you to stick with the same mediation rules that everyone else is following. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's a difficult choice to decide whether his published works are FRINGE or he's FRINGE as an editor, and discussion of the first is required for a sensible discussion. Still, I'll defer that for the length of the mediation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- any sourced material you want to enter into the discussion is fine, I just don't want it to slip over the border into trying to discredit other editors. I do not believe the article will actually cite anything by him - his only purpose here is to give some expert advice, and I believe the bulk of the outline was constructed without a whole lot of input from him. Treat him like an editor with specialized knowledge, not like a source, and things should be fine.
- and thanks for showing up. I think your input will make for an improved article. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Transitivity examples
Hi Arthur. I think you missed the absence of a "not" here, since being an ancestor of is not transitive. Paul August ☎ 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Being an ancestor of is transitive; while being a relative of, although technically transitive, is not transitive in practice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, of course you're correct (I was somehow subconsciously thinking of symmetry - how stupid). Paul August ☎ 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Jim Tucker
How about something like this: "Tucker has developed the Strength Of Case Scale (SOCS), which evaluates what Tucker sees as four aspects of potential cases of reincarnation" (my addition being "what Tucker sees as")? Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- That looks fine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit-warring in Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Hello Arthur Rubin, as I assume you are well aware, that article is currently under a 1 revert restriction ("Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period"), which I believe you have violated by the following two edits:
With both edits, you re-added the vague and contentious (see also [4]) term "government organisations". I hope you will be able to address my concerns in the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which I had reviewed before making my edit), especially by naming other "such" government organizations.
Here, I'd like to ask you something else: Why did you revert my correction of the NYTimes link? Do you see any advantages in the format
- [E-Mails Show Scientists Planning Push-Back Against 'McCarthyite' Attacks on Climate Science http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/05/05greenwire-e-mails-show-scientists-planning-push-back-aga-33296.html]
instead of
Or did you just not take the time to examine my edit fully before reverting?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I had intended to just insert ICO, rather than say "government organisations such as ICO", which wouldn't have been a revert. Notheless, in normal English, the plural includes the singular in a list; one doesn't say, "actors, directors, and a producer", but, instead, "actors, directors, and producers" even if there is only one. I don't see an appropriate place to discuss on the talk page. It would be WP:OR to assert that only one government organization accuses UEA of misconduct, and only slightly less to imply that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- ICO alone would indeed not involve the same concern (although there are still others). I disagree with your second sentence - to me "government organisations such as ICO" very strongly suggests that there must be more of them. And I don't think anyone proposed a wording like "only one government organization". But at least thanks for the partial self-revert. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
CRU edit
Arthur, I do not see how the word "vindicated" is "peacock". Your preferred "cleared" is not really a synonym. I took great pains to add a citation directly to that word, thereby replacing the "peacock" tag. The source cited specifically says they were vindicated. That's verifiableand as we know the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake. For whatever reason, I didn't see it in the source. It's a false interpretation of the report, but verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Asking a favor
Hi Arthur, would you please be a little more tolerant of the newbies? All s/he did was offer some links on the talk page. Yea, they are not RS, but everyone deserves a chance to learn without feeling bad. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A bit overzealous on reversals?
I have previously complained that many of the articles posted on individual biographies, especially of politicians, and of various organizations exhibit profound bias toward their own ideological position. Most of the time I come up to such a page, I leave a flag and perhaps a note on the discussion page. Yesterday, I chose to do otherwise and have gone through a number of sources to update and correct blatant biases in a couple of articles. One was Pete Wilson, former governor of California. The other was Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is the oil industry version of the Tobacco Institute. Both articles had been written largely with platitudes, in glowing tone about the good that has been done by these paragons of wisdom and public service. Sarcasm aside, there had to be a change. Encyclopedic biographies are not supposed to be hagographies and allowing single-issue organizations to submit their propaganda as referenced material is simply inconceivable. I spent a lot of time on these two revisions, checking and rechecking sources and posting only the information that I either knew to be factual or that was directly quoted from the sources. If I might have occasionally posted something that was not neutral, it was largely because of the frustration with hagiographers combined with the volume of information that needed attention--believing that any of us are so pure at heart that we can get away with a substantial volume of work without exhibiting occasional biases.
I tried the posts to be neutral, but, since virtually all information on both pages was heavily biased, much of what I inserted could be seen as criticism. Unfortunately, some neutral information that does not jibe with the myth will always be seen as biased criticism by supporters. No exceptions here.
My corrections on Pete Wilson saw a minor correction by one "Arthur Rubin"--a correction that appears to be valid and one that I missed because I left alone (aside from minor grammatical fixes) a piece of information posted previously. In this case, assuming the revised version is accurate, we can easily agree. However, later today, virtually entire portions of the page were removed by user "JoinArnold" who has had a history of similar behavior on the same page. Basically, he struck down ALL information that was critical of Pete Wilson's performance as Governor and even took out direct quotations from Wilson himself concerning serious issues and important mileposts. If JoinArnold is not banned from posting for his antics, it will be a travesty.
Then I looked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute page. To my concern, I found a full reversal posted by the same "Arthur Rubin", purportedly removing bias. Upon further review, I noticed that some wording could have been improved to avoid bias, but the changes where I made them needed to be made. A blank reversal was simply unjustified. I only want to mention a couple of instances.
First the biases. At one point, I appended the phrase "...leading critics to attack CEI as representing conservative and corporate polluter interests" to a list of organization funders. Although the claim that the funding came from the foundations that support exclusively conservative causes (Scaife, Earhart), and companies that are usually identified as opponents of "environmental causes" (Ford, ExxonMobil, Pfizer), perhaps it was gratuitous of me to actually connect the dots and I should have just left links to the respective Wiki pages, if they exist. Removing this particular line would have been reasonable, although I am not sure it was a bias on my part (as the information is accurate).
Second, I replaced the word "fame" with "infamy" in the sentence, "CEI's global warming policy activities gained infamy as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials." Again, my correction is accurate. The CEI's commercial made an absurd claim that increased carbon dioxide production is beneficial to the planet, accentuated by an equally absurd punchline, "They call it pollution. We call it LIFE." If they said that Earth was flat, no one would have minded describing the attention as "infamy". But if "infamy" is biased, so is "fame". Both are value-laden. "Notoriety" is more neutral in some contexts and less neutral in others. Perhaps "gained attention" would be the most neutral improvement--whatever it may be, it should not be "fame". So, please, make the correction--a meaningful correction--but don't assume that some hack is sitting at the computer trying to poison the well.
I do take back one correction fully. I replaced words "said of" as the verb in the sentence, "In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith offered a much derided opinion on global warming." Smith's opinion was indeed much derided, but it was not universally derided. So, "said" is probably as close to neutral as we are going to get, although I probably would have preferred "stated". On the contrary, in another sentence, I replaced "stating" with "claiming". The word "claiming" is not value-laden--it represents someone making an unsubstantiated statement, which is exactly what happened here: "It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government." This sentence corresponds to an unsubstantiated, self-promoting claim on the CEI's website. It is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, meant to challenge those who do not see it as valid. In other words, it is a claim. I fully stand by the correction I made here.
Another absurd correction that someone made earlier is replacing the word "consumers" with "humans". "Humans" is a word from the domain of science fiction, not encyclopedic discourse. In encyclopedias, we usually say "people" unless we want to specify the kind of people we are talking about, e.g., consumers. I have no problem with "consumers" being gone, but replacing it with "humans" is puerile. If I were grading student papers (which I do, occasionally), I would purge it. If I were editing a manuscript (which I do professionally all the time), I would have corrected it. So I did the same here--the word "humans" in this context is absolutely inappropriate. Reverting the entire revision restores "humans" back where it was. Not good!
Another idiotic correction made previously was replacing CO2 with CO2. No, sorry, the symbol you are looking for is CO2. CO2 is a convenience usually reserved for a typewriter (and for a newspaper headline). Oh? We are not working on a typewriter? Then we should not be using CO2 and place the correct symbol in its place: CO2. Again, not good!
I am not going to go through every thoughtless "correction" that a full reversion by "Arthur Rubin" produced. But my advice to Arthur Rubin is, don't assume that others are dumber than you or that they are out to get you or someone else. Thoughtful corrections require thoughtful further corrections, not a magic reversion keystroke. And a thoughtful editor must also recognize that some neutral, apparently objective words can become weasel words in some contexts (as "free-market" is on the CEI page--it is not neutral, it's a dog-whistle term).
Please take that under advisement as you return to CEI page, as you promised. And, if you have such an opportunity, please help ban JoinArnold from posting partisan scribbles. Alex.deWitte (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid most articles on individuals and organisations should end up being slightly biased toward their point of view, because they are reliable on their own views, and most sources on political matters are unreliable. I'm not convinced that all your changes in Pete Wilson were correct, but there were no clearly unsourced controversial statements about him that you added. In CEI, there were controversial statements that you added without providing any source, and some of the sources you provided were that of, shall we say, political organizations that disagree with CEI? If I had had more time, I would have just reverted the sections that were BLP violations or clearly incorrect.
- I believe "infamy" is listed in WP:AVOID; if not, it should be. Although "claim" is also listed, I agree that it's often the only neutral term available.
- For what it's worth, I believe the funding information for most organizations is inappropriate for Wikipedia, unless a real reliable source makes note of it. (I strongly object to exxonsecrets being considered, for example.) Even if the actual funding information is available (as it is for some non-profits), adding it to the article is "connecting the dots", and IMHO, violates WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Joinarnold has a point; we don't reject biased articles as sources, but we do reject editorials and opt-ed pieces, and some of those were of that type. I would ask you to remove the information not sourced to news articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with what you say, in general. you are right about exxonsecrets--it is just as biased as the CEI. But a site may be biased in its view and well researched and documented at the same time--the bias may come for the selection of targets more than the presentation. I consider MediaTransparancy an example of this, although it has now been folded into MediMatters site. Their research is done directly from tax forms and corporate reports and the data they find are beyond reproach. One might criticize them for going only after conservative organizations, but this hardly reflects on the quality of their data. They have CEI on their target list.
- Here's the problem. The goal of an organization such as CEI is, from the outset, propaganda. Their own literature is written specifically with that purpose in mind. Unless it is directly cited in bits reproduced here, it seems to be an inappropriate use of sources--at best, it is an equivalent of an editorial. In contrast, among the citations I added for Pete Wilson, there is an editorial that actually endorsed Wilson for governor, so one would assume that it is not of the type that you want to see removed. In fact, the 1994 endorsement was the first LA Times endorsement since 1970, which they clearly stated on the page. Perhaps this fact should be added to make it clear that it is not a trivially biased source. Other sources and citations that Joinarnold had removed were a San Diego Union Tribune article that literally quoted Wilson at the unveiling of his statue. The only source previously cited was PR from Wilson's employer, and, even then, two of the quotes match between the sources--I just added an extra one since there was no doubt of authenticity. I only quoted one other column and it was in context. The rest of the sources are all news articles (except for corrected or updated links posted by others that I did not remove--I did remove one dead link).
- In general, I believe, full reversion should be a measure of last resort, when there is a clear attempt to mislead, deceive or introduce blatant bias. I don't think trying to balance a hagiography of a public servant qualifies for such treatment. My objection to Joinarnold was not merely the immediate act of scrubbing not just everything I added, but also taking out all the underlying factual information that has been sitting on the page for a long time--something that this user has done on this page before, and always apparently for the sake of protecting the legend, rather than the record. There is no place in an encyclopedia for legends, unless they are clearly identified as such. Public figures are responsible for all the bad as well as the good things they do. This applies to politicians, clergy, public advocates, actors, writers, etc. One cannot write about the Papacy and not mention the controversy over child abuse from the last decade, even if this appears critical of the Church. The goal is to provide factual account and attempt to avoid bias. But this goal should be embraced by all, not just the critics.
- I still suggest that someone look into Joinarnold's activities on the site. His actions on the Pete Wilson page introduce bias rather than remove it. His list of contributions includes a large number of similarly sourced and related pages. In fact, his own user name, although not dispositive, is certainly suggestive when it comes to California politics. If he is not directly a Republican operative in California, he is certainly a fellow traveler. I have no such allegiances. I am equally critical of Left, Right, Middle and Uninvolved and believe the full record should be shown for all. I am not aware of a prohibition on "fact bias".
Keep up the good work. Alex.deWitte (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
RV at Types of Rape
Hi Arthur
You made an RV at Types of Rape just recently. There's some discussion going on around that at the talk page that is relevant to this. Maybe you can contribute there as well? Thepm (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edit. Surely, "recovered memory" and "repressed memory" are not the same thing. The former is the later, but not vice versa. -- Taku (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, they're not exactly the same thing. But recovered memory is now a copyright violation; it should have been significantly edited down from repressed memory, and credit given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not a copyright violation. It's from cz. Maybe it should be edited down. But redirecting isn't how you do it. You don't redirect a page just because you think it has a problem. -- 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a copyright violation unless you credit the authors of the cz article and the translator. And there was consensus that recovered memory was a subset of repressed memory, and its existence is so disputed that there shouldn't be a different article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not a copyright violation. It's from cz. Maybe it should be edited down. But redirecting isn't how you do it. You don't redirect a page just because you think it has a problem. -- 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand licensing. Wikipedia and CZ are licensed under cc-by-sa. Therefore you can freely mix contents with attributions of course. But we're giving credits. Finally, the consensus can change. If you have a problem with the existence of the article, then the correct path is to take it to fad. Please try to be more constructive. You're not being reasonable. -- Taku (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You need to credit the authors of the cz article on the talk page, at a minimum. However, the article should be first incorporated into repressed memory, and the relevant points split out. Hoaving parallel articles with some (but not all) of the same information is bad form. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- And consensus can change, but there's no evidence that it has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)