I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
Nina Totenberg
I agree with many of your edits you've made to Nina Totenberg, but I believe that what you've done in the Criticism and Controversy section is a bit draconian. It leaves the reader asking, "what exactly is the criticism or controversy?" Yes, the references are still there (some of which aren't linked to), but WP isn't meant to be just a highly distilled compendium of references about subjects. As it stands now, the section about 2 potential conflicts of interest takes up twice the space that the highly compressed 5 criticisms/controversies take in the second paragraph. Please restore the 5 specific criticisms/controversies to the text (Gigot criticism, Bozell criticism, Kates criticism, Jesse Helms quote, and Gen. Boykin quote). In the case of the Kates criticism, we now have Totenberg's side (in the quote within the reference), but none of the other side.--Drrll (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a balancing act, and I thank you for commenting. The reason I did this is because I stepped away from the previous work on this I did a month back and reread the section tonight. It read something like a hack-job: not really a summary-style but more of a haphazard and disorganized collection of quotes. I agree with you that the conflict of interest paragraph is now overly-weighted in the section, but I'm hoping to pare that down too.
- Many of criticisms are quite vague or not worth detailing. The Gigot criticism is a single quote that doesn't seem to be anything more than "I don't like her" and the Bozell criticism amounts to a dispute over the is-ought problem or, perhaps cherrypicking. I'm not sure that it adds anything to the discussion to be exact with what those two said. Essentially, they just disagree with her politics, right?
- The Kates and NRA criticism are a bit more subtle. Kates is, essentially, parroting the congressional testimony which was not so much directed at Totenberg as it was directed at the entire media. That might be worth expanding upon since second amendment rights are the real crux and not conservative politics. I'll try to think about how best to summarize that.
- The Jeff Jacoby (Jesse Helsm quote) and Media Research Center (Gen. Boykin exchange) criticisms both stem from her punditry. I think that relates them, but their particular content seems a bit more detailed than is really necessary. Does the reader really want to know that Jesse Helms wanted to cut AIDS funding in the 1990s because of his gay-plague belief and does the reader really need a detailed exposition of how Totenberg when hoping for a removal of Boykin from his position apparently inadvertently sounded like she called for his murder? I'm not really all that convinced of this. I think the fact that this stems from her punditry and the implicit criticism by Dvorkin of her for engaging in this kind of "side-project" is much more relevant to the casual reader as a subject. If someone wants to know details, they can click on the links. That's what they're there for. I think putting some of the quotes in the footnotes might help the issue of not having "linked" referecnes.
- Could you maybe flesh out a bit more how this idea strikes you? Thanks!
- ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't respond earlier--I've been out.
- You have indeed significantly improved the readability and made the section far less disjointed.
- I think the Gigot and Bozell criticisms go far beyond just that they don't like her or agree with her politics, but directly to her professional responsibilities (reporting). Totenberg frequently reports negatively about conservatives/Republicans, but rarely reports negatively about liberals/Democrats.
- I like the version with the changes you've made in the meantime better, but what do you think about some tweaks to what's there currently:
- -adding the Gigot quote to the Vanity Fair reference
- -adding Bozell's summary point to his reference
- -changing "against pro-gun rights positions" to "for anti-gun rights positions" (that's really their point) and including in the Kates reference his contention that Totenberg misrepresented the position of law journals on the 2nd amendment
- -changing "she expressed disdain for the positions and proposals of certain right-wing newsmakers such as Jesse Helms and William G. Boykin" to "she expressed a desire for harm to befall certain conservative newsmakers with whom she disagreed, such as Jesse Helms and William G. Boykin" (that's what is controversial, not simply her disagreements with their positions, though the Boykin matter is clearly not in the same league as the Helms matter in hoping for AIDS to strike him or his grandchildren).
- -adding the relevant quotes she made about Helms and Boykin to their respective references.
- Adding the quote to the reference seems like a good idea.
- I'd prefer to add a Bozell quote to his reference, because summaries in references are not usually considered appropriate. But as I don't have a hardcopy of this source, I cannot find a choice quote. If you have one you'd like to suggest, please let me know.
- Hmm, I'm not exactly sure that's either's point. What they seem to be saying s that the media is baised against their positions rather than in favor of the other side. I read both references fairly carefully and they really argue that Totenberg is discriminating against them rather than arguing in favor of gun control.
- I don't think this one is possible. We have a reliable source stating that the interpretation is likely not that she was wishing any sort of physical harm to Boykin and the Jesse Helms stuff is more bluster that would have to be contextualized if we were to argue that way. Rhetoric being what it is, I think we cannot state with certainty that she was not using these kinds of word choices for effect. The Helms quote, in fact, is sufficiently conditional and subjunctive as to allow, in a court of law, plausible deniability. Appealing to some sort of cosmic justice is definitely a couched way of stating something pretty harsh, but we at Wikipedia are not equipped to go beyond these sources to make the point that Jacoby makes. Totenberg's use of the the appeal to consequences is a deprecated rhetorical technique, but one that is used by a variety of pundits from the left and right. I indicated in the article that this was her game, but we should be aware that there is a BLP issue here because it can technically be considered to be a crime to wish harm on another. Punditry being what it is today, I'm not sure it is entirely neutral to state that she "expressed a desire for harm to befall though something stronger than "disdain" is what she was indicating. Let me know what you think of my change.
- I don't think we can really add the quotes about Helms and Boykin without providing context because these are statements she made rather than statements that others made. However, if you can find a bit of criticism from MRC those quotes would be relevant. I just checked the Jacoby article and found that all he did was provide quotes she said and then assert that this was "hate speech" rather than provide any additional enlightening commentary that would warrant a separate quote field. He did call her an "NPR diva", but that doesn't seem very relevant. In any case, the quotes are visible in this reference which is available online, and so I don't think we need to repeat it here.
- I'll make the changes I outline above and welcome your response.
- ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like the changes you have since made to the article. In light of your arguments, it was a bit much to state that she wished harm to befall the two individuals. The way you put it works much better.
- -Here is the full relevant quote from the Bozell article "In 1991, Totenberg took a bitter former employee (and according to some, wanna-be girlfriend) named Anita Hill and forced a new set of hearings around Hill’s unsubstantiated tales of sexual harassment by Thomas. But when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick came forward with their (far more serious) charges against Bill Clinton, Totenberg’s compassion was nowhere to be found."
- -I'd like to see Kates' specific charge of misrepresentation in reporting by Totenberg quoted in his reference, but I don't currently have access to that book
- -I believe that in the case of the Helms quote, the words are so breathtakingly harsh that they deserve to be in the main article text, but if not there, at least in a reference. I've looked for the context of these remarks--what quote or characterization of Helms led to Totenberg's remarks, but have only found the words immediately preceding the remarks.
- --Drrll (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like the changes you have since made to the article. In light of your arguments, it was a bit much to state that she wished harm to befall the two individuals. The way you put it works much better.
- I'm going to pare down the inflammatory language a bit. Bozell can be a bit over-the-top with his character assassinations and characterizing Anita Hill is not the purpose of the article. Still, thanks for the quote: it's useful.
- Kates' book is available in limited amounts on google books. I'll dig up a quote.
- The Helms thing seems pretty rhetorical to me, but I guess that's probably because I see it as Totenberg saying something along the lines of "wouldn't it be ironic" rather than "I hope the God I don't believe in strikes him down." YMMV. In any case, the problem I'm having is that Jacoby only provides the quote itself and doesn't actually explain what he thinks she's doing. Since the reader can click on that link and read for themselves what she said, maybe that's good enough? We can try moving the reference directly to Jesse Helms and see if that helps.
ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Question on appealing
Some questions about your decision regarding the Shakespeare Authorship merge: There were numerous options discussed and I'm unclear as to which option exactly were you endorsing - The compromise suggestion of merging the two Oxfordian articles into one but keeping it separate from the overview article (Shakespeare authorship question)? Merging all authorship articles (Baconian, Marlowvian, etc.) into one giant article? Also, what is the process for a possible appeal of your decision? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please workshop a proposed parent article per summary style in a kind fo sandbox. Then let it go live. See the relevant section on WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I opened up a dialog with Jimbo who advised this: "For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC). Can you provide input on this? Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please workshop a proposed parent article per summary style in a kind fo sandbox. Then let it go live. See the relevant section on WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Incivility of Nishidani, Reedy, et al
I marvel that you begin your page with a policy on incivility but seem to have ignored the incivility of Nishidani, Reedy and others promoting the merging of pages on Oxfordian theory, etc. with Shakespearean authorship. A string of abuses by these editors is well documented and continues up until the present. --BenJonson (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perceived incivility is totally irrelevant to content decisions. I encourage you to take up your concerns about other editors' behavior with dispute resolution. Wikiquette alerts may work well. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Decisions that have been enforced substantially through the use of ad hominems against other wikipedians cannot possibly be in the interest of the wikipedia community or the topics under discussion. You chose to turn a blind eye to this history. Believe me, complaints have been filed, and will continue to be filed if these, your associates in the proposal to merge, do not stop their harassment. I would parenthetically add that your approach to this particular matter through the lens of your "skepticism" has led you to ignore and override a clear majority opinion on the page in question in favor of a unilateral administrative action on a topic on which you are evidently wholly ignorant.--76.69.101.88 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I actually agree with everything you say except for the bit that it was a "unilateral administrative action". Be that as it may, I hope you contribute to the attempted solution and help us build a good article. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I seem to spend most of my time, since entering that page, running around to identify places where my 'hostility' is being screamed about to get me out of editing that page. Certainly, when, on several occasions, I have been constrained to explain, write essays on ignored background, parse simple English, and exhort my interlocutors to listen closely to what is being argued, I've used strong language. Being stonewalled, or confronting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome, tends to prod a certain remonstrative vigour in the end. But most of what is being complained about arises from a systematic and perhaps tactical confusion between what I, following outstanding mainstream scholars, actually think of conspiracy theories, which I don't hide, with what I may rejoin or say to specific editors who ardently embrace those theories. I am far more 'hostile' to theories that have no evidence for them, than against those who may happen to subscribe to them. Some may take offence at me personally for giving 4 or 5 mainstream sources describing these theories as 'giving Baconism a run for madness', 'lunatic' etc., but that is what authoritative Shakespearean scholars have said, and if I repeat those remarks, I can't be held responsible for violating wiki etiquette. Our job is to look at what RS say, not to sweep troubling judgements under the carpet and out of sight because feelings may be offended.
- I must admit too, that only three editors engage on that page, but when moves are made to rope in the sprawling de Verean spam to make a clear, neutral and concise exposition of what is a fringe piece of speculation that in 80 years of intense 'research' has yielded almost nothing of interest, all of a sudden, out of the silent woodwork many editors appear, most with no contributions to the encyclopedia, some who say they won't edit it because they don't like their immortal words being challenged, to sway the verdict the other way, or create the usual impasse. For those of us who have a strong history of commitment to wikipedia, this looks, well, distinctly odd. In any case, can we drop the whingeing, and just get on with either editing, or making intelligent proposals for frogmarching this recalcitrant abundance of hypotheses into two or three clear, laconic wiki pages?Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I actually agree with everything you say except for the bit that it was a "unilateral administrative action". Be that as it may, I hope you contribute to the attempted solution and help us build a good article. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Decisions that have been enforced substantially through the use of ad hominems against other wikipedians cannot possibly be in the interest of the wikipedia community or the topics under discussion. You chose to turn a blind eye to this history. Believe me, complaints have been filed, and will continue to be filed if these, your associates in the proposal to merge, do not stop their harassment. I would parenthetically add that your approach to this particular matter through the lens of your "skepticism" has led you to ignore and override a clear majority opinion on the page in question in favor of a unilateral administrative action on a topic on which you are evidently wholly ignorant.--76.69.101.88 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
So am I correct in assuming I don't need to spend my time putting together a defence? I had blocked out some time to do so, but since receiving your much-appreciated message on my talk page I have planned otherwise. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that a defence at this point would probably be a waste of time. More editing needs to be done and less behavioral policing. You might want to get the opinion of another, though, before deciding to do this. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Aw, you're no fun anymore ;-)
Please, for the love of the Bard or whomever else, work on editing and less on sniping at each other.
But that sounds so... constructive! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Quotes in articles
Per your comment here, would you be willing to take a glance at List of bow tie wearers to see how badly it falls short of that standard? The extra set of eyes would be appreciated, should you find the time.--~TPW 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Blind
I'm not sure how I messed up that. I read the page title as a Userspace page, not a mainspace page. It certainly seems like that's what the editor was going for. Ah well. I'll A10 it, and tell the creator if he still wants it, I'll give him userspace copy. WilyD 21:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edits at reincarnation research
Hello, you have just undone some work which is the subject of a long discussion on the talk page. Please discuss there before reverting and try to gain consensus. Specifically, please respond to the points at Talk:Reincarnation_research#Described_as_pseudoscience. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore you did not state on the talk page why you put the "unbalanced" tag on the hypnotic regression section. Please let us know your thinking behind this. Mitsube (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have again undone the work which has been carefully justified on talk. Please join the discussion here and here, the latter is about your removals.
- Maybe we need to make the point in the article that while the research itself was done appropriately, drawing the conclusion that reincarnation is true has some support, but (skeptics state that) believing it to have been scientifically established is pseudoscientific. There may even be more mainstream support for the last phrase other than the community of skeptics. I have no problem with this language. I personally disagree with some of Stevenson's inferences, such as mind-body dualism. Would you work with me on the talk page please? Mitsube (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was reinstating your language [1]! Are you sharing this account with someone else? Mitsube (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK I guess you just forgot, sorry. You also forgot about removing the "speculation", please respond on the talk page. Mitsube (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was reinstating your language [1]! Are you sharing this account with someone else? Mitsube (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Warring on Reincarnation research
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SilverserenC 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say we have an edit war just yet. Differeing opinions, yes. War, nope. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
AN/I Post
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring at Reincarnation research
- Reincarnation research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've been studying the report at WP:AN3#User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Mitsube (Result: ).
A quick scan suggests that you have broken 3RR on this article, and your large number of reverts starting 23:16 on 24 March indicates edit warring. I will wait to hear if you will promise to refrain from warring for a period of time. I suggest that you voluntarily accept a 1RR/day restriction on your edits of this article for thirty days. If you do so, I think that an admin will close the 3RR case with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could I see the 3RR diffs? I take my revert counting very seriously. I have been explicitly trying to avoid reverts. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- That said, if all the people who reverted yesterday submit to 1RR, I will gladly submit to 1RR myself. I really like 1RR as a model, but it only works if everybody adheres. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here are the times of the reverts, starting with your edit of 23:16 on 24 March, and going for 24 hours:
- ScienceApologist:
- 24 March - 23:16
- 25 March - 14:07, 17:16, 21:52
- Sacca:
- 25 March - 07:46
- Mitsube:
- 25 March - 16:18, 17:20
- Guyonthesubway:
- 25 March - 19:33, 20:01, 20:06
- My calculation strings together consecutive reverts as one. As you see, Mitsube had only two reverts. You're the only person who got up to four reverts. Looking at talk page participation, Mitsube has been carefully using the talk page for a long time. Though he has his own viewpoint, he seems to have been patient, and I do not see that he needs to be sanctioned for edit warring. On the other hand, you did break 3RR on a contentious article, and I maintain my request that you agree to a 1RR. If you don't, I'll either issue a block or go through the steps for a compulsory 1RR. Feel free to check my calculations of the reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I don't think those diffs are all reverts, Ed. Strictly speaking only one is a "true" revert, and two might be construed as partial reverts (though I would object to one of them being so listed and the other is dubious to me as well). One is clearly NOT a revert, as far as I can tell.
- 24 March 23:16 -- I came to the page FRESH at this point and edited without referring to any previous versions. Looking back through the previous versions I see none that look like the one I created in that instance. So to me this is not a revert. Can you explain why you think it is?
- 25 March 14:07 -- A revert. I did not see Sacca explain on the talk page why he was reverting so I thought that this was a drive-by.
- 25 March 17:16 -- I do not see which version this is supposed to be a revert to. I guess it might be that the lead is partially reverted, but I'm having a hard time understanding that too since there was no objection to that piece on the talkpage. Can you explain how it was a revert?
- 25 March 21:52 -- In this case, I MOVED (not deleted) the cited material up to a more appropriate section. I did delete a single sentence that was uncited, but I was responding directly to the protestations of those who said that those pieces of primary source documents were good. I moved them to the discussion of Stevenson's work above. If this is a revert, then you are counting it as one because I deleted a single sentence. There is no previous version which incorporates both the cited material (that's moved UP in the very next diff) and tries to get rid of the original research.
- Thanks for doing this. I don't think those diffs are all reverts, Ed. Strictly speaking only one is a "true" revert, and two might be construed as partial reverts (though I would object to one of them being so listed and the other is dubious to me as well). One is clearly NOT a revert, as far as I can tell.
- Throughout all this, I was discussing. I do not think your analysis of the evidence is clear and you certainly seem to be incorrect that you "strung together consecutive reverts as one" since you didn't notice that I restored the material in the next diff after 25 March 21:52. Can you look again and see what you think of my analysis of this evidence?
- Aside from this, I have no issue sticking to 1RR if everyone else does too. In fact, I'll stick to 0RR if everyone else does. Is that amenable?
- ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are not yet in sync on the reverts. Here are the details from my analysis:
- SA's 23:16 of 24 March adds the word 'credulous'. This and his following edits constitute a revert. -- R
- At 14:07 on 25 March, SA undid Sacca's last change (this is a revert) -- R
- At 17:16 on 25 March, SA removes a whole bunch of material, justified only by his edit summary (claiming it's not relevant to the topic) (this is a revert) -- R
- At 17:18 on 25 March, SA puts back the more verbose entry for the Skeptic's Dictionary (this is a revert, but it's consecutive)
- At 21:31 on 25 March, SA made a minor wording change (probably not a revert),
- At 21:35 on 25 March, SA changed wording of the lead to be apparently less neutral (not a revert) (since it adds new wording, it's only a revert in the most technical sense)
- At 21:48 on 25 March, SA changes headings (probably an improvement) (not a revert)
- At 21:49, SA makes another heading change (not a revert)
- At 21:52 on 25 March, SA removes a lot of material (call it a revert) -- R
- Which of the ones marked 'R' do you think are not reverts?
- I'm busy in the real world for about five hours, and can't respond further till after that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The first one (24 March 23:16) I do not think is a revert at all. I cannot identify a version I'm reverting to. The last one (25 March 21:52) can only be considered a revert if you think that removing the single sentence I removed is a revert. "A lot of material" was actually restored in subsequent edits after 21:52. The other two I can concede as reverts, though I think the 25 March 17:16 edit is only a partial revert (but why quibble?) ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- You've also left out quite a few, lets be careful about this eh?:
- (cur) (prev) 20:06, 25 March 2010 Guyonthesubway (talk | contribs) (11,617 bytes) (Undid revision 352029388 by Ludwigs2 (talk) Please don't mass revert without discussing why you think duplication is necessary...) (undo)
- (cur) (prev) 20:02, 25 March 2010 Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) (21,604 bytes) (rv. enough reversions please. leave it be and discuss in talk.) (undo)
- (cur) (prev) 20:01, 25 March 2010 Guyonthesubway (talk | contribs) (11,617 bytes) (Why do you think its appropriate to duplicate large sections of these articles? Please discuss after reading WP:WEIGHT.) (undo)
- (cur) (prev) 19:57, 25 March 2010 Silver seren (talk | contribs) (21,604 bytes) (I do not believe removing half the article is appropriate) (undo)
- Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
New proposals at reincarnation research
I have some new proposals on the talk page that I would like to know your reactions to. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Your talk page
I will try to respect your request as best I can, but if I need to communicate with you I will use it. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I feel that pushing the 'skeptics' bit in that reversion is pushing it a bit too far myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- As the established RS editors continue the process of adopting more and more parts of articles that deal with fringe and pseudoscience, we keep coming into contact with editors who do not seem to be aware that all these games have been tried before. WP:FRINGE#In-text attribution was written a long time ago in response to such behavior. So was WP:TAGBOMB. It makes evaluating their behavior easier. The way in which WP:PARITY is ignored and Carroll's resource derided reminds me of about three dozen other fights I've had on Wikipedia over completely unrelated issues. Each time, the RS editors have won. It's just a matter of time. Right now, the articles and sections that are in dispute are pretty good. I hope they stay that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you have removed more material just after I added it [2]. That is three. If you revert again I will report you to and bring Ed's attention to it, as he is very familiar with your behavior in the recent past. I was hoping you would be willing to work cooperatively but that hasn't been the case today, unfortunately. I really hope my latest attempt meets your approval. Mitsube (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- As the established RS editors continue the process of adopting more and more parts of articles that deal with fringe and pseudoscience, we keep coming into contact with editors who do not seem to be aware that all these games have been tried before. WP:FRINGE#In-text attribution was written a long time ago in response to such behavior. So was WP:TAGBOMB. It makes evaluating their behavior easier. The way in which WP:PARITY is ignored and Carroll's resource derided reminds me of about three dozen other fights I've had on Wikipedia over completely unrelated issues. Each time, the RS editors have won. It's just a matter of time. Right now, the articles and sections that are in dispute are pretty good. I hope they stay that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre
Is a bit of a biographical detail for the framer of the Big Bang theory (Georges Lemaitre) really unnecessary? It hardly went into any detail - just that he was a priest (or a Jesuit, I forget which) and that he taught at the University of Leuven in Belgium. I don't think a bit of an extra fact harms anyone, does it? Looking forward to hear your thoughts. (1tephania (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
- Oh, didn't know there was another reference at the end of the article. Would it be better to stay at the end of the article though? (1tephania (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- I think so. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I am sorry I had to undo your decision to merge the page based on another subject's decision. This is clearly a different subject, being a placename rather than a series of tablets with several other verifiable sources including George Aaron Barton's work and Satellite imagery placename. Please see nomination for deletion points raised in history. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
New message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
RS opinion needed
Would you stop by and give us your opinion about this?Tom Reedy (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:ONEWAY violations?
Would you please take a look at these diffs? [3] [4] [5] [6]
I've been reviewing the policies and I believe that Smatprt's strategy of wedging in references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, and I also think it's misclassified as to the particular genre of WP:FRINGE it is. It appears that he's following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted one of them, but I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate your perspective before I do anything further. I've also notified Verbal to ask his opinion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- First, I am not "following" Tom. I have these pages on my watchlist as I have edited them. In fact, it appears that Tom is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of the SAQ minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles that I have edited: [[7]], [[8]], [[9]] and [[10]]. Regarding the first and second links, Historical revisionism and Fringe theory, the regular editors of the HR page had never suggested that that the example was improper in any way, but here is a link to a related discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism [[11]]. And here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [[12]] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [[13]] (second to last paragraph). Tom is clearly using my edit history, following me around to pages he has never participated in, and reverting my edits. This behavior started after I filed a RFC/u against him. Is this a case of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS? I'd appreciate some input on this. Smatprt (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is typical of you to accuse your critics of doing what you do. I am using the SAQ "What links here" to find unwarranted linkage in violation of WP:ONEWAY, where your edits were made months and weeks ago. You reverted my edits within hours, proving that you use my user contribution page to follow my edits. In any case, these unwarranted mentions of the SAQ and Oxford-as-Shakespeare are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, and no vote by any number of drive-by editors that you rely on for support can change that. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tom, you really need to learn how to set the preferences on your watch list. As you note, I have edited those pages, so my preferences are set so they AUTOMATICALLY appear on my watch list. I was on those pages and made edits. You came along later and reverted them. Period. And the fact remains that after the RFC/u was closed, you now are going to pages I have edited and reverting those edits. Whether it's a week or a month later, it's still a simple reversion. The only time days/weeks/etc come into play is when 3RR is being discussed, which it is not. Please continue to research these things. It would really help you to avoid making incorrect accusations like this. Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is typical of you to accuse your critics of doing what you do. I am using the SAQ "What links here" to find unwarranted linkage in violation of WP:ONEWAY, where your edits were made months and weeks ago. You reverted my edits within hours, proving that you use my user contribution page to follow my edits. In any case, these unwarranted mentions of the SAQ and Oxford-as-Shakespeare are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, and no vote by any number of drive-by editors that you rely on for support can change that. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem*
The first two diffs Tom outlines seem relatively reasonable to me. Tweaking them is okay, but I don't really see a reason to revert. The third one is peculiar in that it removes a pretty good source. I'm not sure I understand the rationale that you're using for that one, Smatprt. The last diff strikes me as being a bit more problematic because of WP:WEIGHT. I would be inclined to revert that one until independent sources acknowledging that these perspectives were prominent were given, but I'm trying to maintain some independence here, and so will defer to someone else who thinks that reasonable. This talk page is monitored heavily, so it could be that all these problems are already resolved. If not, buzz me again.
WP:ONEWAY is usually a proposal that is invoked when people decide to lead editors to other locations in defiance of the mainstream understanding. Kind of like linking to flat earth from our earth article. IN this case, the only "oneway issue" I see is in the last diff, and actually it's bigger than that because it isn't just a link: it's an entire section. WP:BRD would incline me to think that removing that section and discussing whether it belongs or not is probably the best thing to do right now. Get a third opinion if you'd like, or post a message to WP:FTN.
And I advise that no one gripe about how people are following one direction or another, whether it be by user contributions or article differences or what links here. All this information (except an individual's watchlist) is public and available for scrutiny. EXPECT that your work will be double checked by others. That's what keeps Wikipedia honest. Keep the personal animosity out of it.
Best,
ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have provided several more refs for the last one (Chronology) which show how prominent the chronology issue is. The newest refs show how prominently a noted authorship debunker addresses the issue. Even more refs can be forthcoming if requested, as the issue has been addresses repeatedly by researchers on both sides of the debate. I agree about the removal of the source in regards to number three, and will certainly restore it. I see no reason why both refs and both statements should not be included. As to rationale - to quote the message I left on Tom's talk page "As to Marprelate, first - I didn't add the initial mention (De Vere as Pasquill Cavaliero, as referenced to Appleton's book). I added the mention that DeVere is the leading candidate line. It's an obvious connection to be made: the article speculates on who Pasquill was, it mentions several candidates including newer scholarship, and one of those candidates just also happens to be the leading candidate for the works of Shakespeare. The additions hardly create undue weight, nor the appearance of a wp:coatrack. The one-way guideline just does not apply." Does that clarify my rationale for you as to why the information should not be deleted? Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Um, Smatprt, the two refs you added to the chronology article make it clear that the alternative dating is WP:FRINGE. Using your logic, we could insert all kinds of references to fringe topics if someone has debunked tham
- And Appleton's book is not RS; she was awarded a PhD for "life experience" in exchange for "tuition" by the same company that published her book, and in any case no academics have responded to her ideas, a requirement for Wikipedia if it is to be included in a non-fringe article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think that if someone is in the business of debunking, that makes the idea notable, but not necessarily prominent. Look at WP:Notability vs. prominence for more on that. In fact, I'd argue that an idea can only be prominent if it is mentioned almost every time the subject is mentioned. I do not think this is the case for the last option. I thank you, Smatprt, for restoring the source, but you might want to consider that tweaking the wording of those lines might be appropriate too. I think Tom's edit captures the general summary of the subject better. I have no way of knowing whether his removal of the last sentence was correct in light of WP:WEIGHT or not having almost no familiarity with research on this subject at all, but I'm inclined to think that what needs to be done is a careful consideration of a random assortment of sources to see if that idea is mentioned or not. Is that possible? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to the chronology issue, it's a pretty safe bet that every time the authorship issue is mentioned, the date of De Vere's death (1604) is almost always mentioned right along side the fact that the "accepted" chronology goes past that 1604 date. In fact, it is the primary anti-oxfordian argument. If the article/book is a "debunker" they normally leave it at that. If the article is more neutral or pro-skeptic, they will nearly always mention that Oxfordians do not accept the standard chronology and that no "necessary" source material has been identified past the 1604 date. It's certainly a prominent part of every authorship discussion that mentions Oxford (which most due because of his front-runner status. Smatprt (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, is this a "fringe of the fringe" issue? If so, I'm at a loss, but it certainly doesn't belong on the main pages then. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The Oxfordian Theory is the leading authorship theory and the only one to achieve prominence in the last 25 years. As such it is completely notable on its own merits and is prominently mentioned on a regular basis by the NY Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, etc., etc.. It also receives (by far) the most attention from mainstream critics such as Wells, McCrae, Bate, Shaprio, etc. I know Tom will disagree with me on this, but it has actually become the most mainstream of all authorship theories, by virtue of the fact that a number of academics actively support it and Concordia University has recently opened a multi-million dollar authorship studies center that focuses on Oxfordian studies. The university also hosts an annual "De Vere Studies Conference". Back to the chronology issue - all this goes to the point that there has been so much research on De Vere that an Oxfordian Chronology has been developed (unlike any other candidate) and that is precisely the dissenting view that the chronology article links to. Smatprt (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, you contend that Oxfordian Theory is not fringe? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well that is a difficult question to answer, due to the extremely broad Wiki definition of Fringe (anything that departs from generally accepted scholarship). A clarifying question is in order - at what point does something become a "minority view" instead of a "fringe theory"? For that matter what is the difference between "alternative view", "minority view" and "fringe view"? I must admit to being a bit confused on this. Due to the very broad definition I mentioned above, I have gone along with the "Fringe" designation, but in view of the recent NY Times survey where 17% of university Shakespeare professors admitted "possible" doubt and only 31% called it a "waste of time", and the fact that several universities are now teaching the subject, at what point do these various wiki designations come into play? Your thoughts? Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, you contend that Oxfordian Theory is not fringe? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The Oxfordian Theory is the leading authorship theory and the only one to achieve prominence in the last 25 years. As such it is completely notable on its own merits and is prominently mentioned on a regular basis by the NY Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, etc., etc.. It also receives (by far) the most attention from mainstream critics such as Wells, McCrae, Bate, Shaprio, etc. I know Tom will disagree with me on this, but it has actually become the most mainstream of all authorship theories, by virtue of the fact that a number of academics actively support it and Concordia University has recently opened a multi-million dollar authorship studies center that focuses on Oxfordian studies. The university also hosts an annual "De Vere Studies Conference". Back to the chronology issue - all this goes to the point that there has been so much research on De Vere that an Oxfordian Chronology has been developed (unlike any other candidate) and that is precisely the dissenting view that the chronology article links to. Smatprt (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, is this a "fringe of the fringe" issue? If so, I'm at a loss, but it certainly doesn't belong on the main pages then. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to the chronology issue, it's a pretty safe bet that every time the authorship issue is mentioned, the date of De Vere's death (1604) is almost always mentioned right along side the fact that the "accepted" chronology goes past that 1604 date. In fact, it is the primary anti-oxfordian argument. If the article/book is a "debunker" they normally leave it at that. If the article is more neutral or pro-skeptic, they will nearly always mention that Oxfordians do not accept the standard chronology and that no "necessary" source material has been identified past the 1604 date. It's certainly a prominent part of every authorship discussion that mentions Oxford (which most due because of his front-runner status. Smatprt (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Minority views, alternate views, and fringe views are all roughly synonymous in Wikispeak (with one bizarre exception that I can point you to if you are at all interested). The difference is always in sourcing. prominence, weighting, and notability of the ideas. To give an example I'm intimately familiar with, one of my favorite "fringe theories" is DGP model which provides a plausible though probably intractable alternative to dark energy. Note that a large number of contemporary astronomers and physicists would probably be skeptical as to whether dark energy is real or not, but DGP theory, even though it was proposed by well-respected scientists and is of interest to many, is still treated at Wikipedia as a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- More people believe in that aliens have visited the earth than believe that someone else wrote Shakespeare. Is alien visitation a "minority view" and not a fringe theory? And don't misrepresent the survey by intermixing question answers. This type of mendacious argument is one reason why so many people groan when you show up to edit an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Returning to personal attacks so soon? Could you please, at least, respect ScienceApologist's request and "Keep the personal animosity out of it"? Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt you'll believe me, but I have absolutely zero personal animosity toward you; I have a lot of animosity toward the way you edit and argue. If you learned how to edit I think you would make a good Wikipediean, but your primary agenda seems to be to push your POV in as many Wikipedia articles as you can. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shapiro's history, published this month, says that Oxfordian theory was dying on its feat in the 1980s, for sheer lack of ever proving any of its theories, i.e., 60 years of research with no smoking gun document turning up, as was originally expected, until new media adopted it on the 70s 'equal time' approach, even though this meant giving equal time to a fringe view. Much astute campaigning for moot court cases and newspaper and net profiles, got it back on its feet and thriving. Now Shapiro makes it quite clear it is successful in the media, but that, intellectually, there's nothing there. It is a noisy movement, very attentive to things like wikipedia and the NYTs and television, and staging splash events, but zilch, nada, nil, zero in terms of actual research results. It is as a theory, 'fringe', since it has obtained in 90 years, not one single piece of evidence for its wild proposition established to its credit by neutral authorities: it is, as a lobby, very successful at public self-promotion. Indeed self-promotion is probably more important to its members than the ideas themselves, which are just recycled endlessly from the deadwood of past, buried 'positions'. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- New media adopted it in the 70's but it was dying in the 80's?? Either you have it backwards or Shapiro isn't making sense. (I also understand that Shapiro is taking credit for the Wilmont forgery discovery - or at least not giving credit where it is actually due??) In any case, since 1984 when Ogburns book came out it's been notable and prominent in the press, in publications, and, yes, in segments of the academic world. Which is why I said "in the last 25 years". In terms of a smoking gun, you have left out Oxford's Bible, and the published PhD dissertation that went along with it. I could, of course, argue that no smoking gun has appeared that proves William Shakespeare wrote the plays in spite of 400 years of searching by the academic world. Using the above logic, does that make the standard attribution a fringe theory as well? How about Vickers recent theories concerning collaboration or Shakespeare's monument? Are those Fringe? Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.