94.193.139.22 (talk) →Thanks re Ken Ham: new section |
→AR Notification: new section |
||
Line 418: | Line 418: | ||
Hi - thanks for implementing my suggested rewrite of the lead sentence of Ken Ham, and highlighting it to a wider audience. --[[Special:Contributions/94.193.139.22|94.193.139.22]] ([[User talk:94.193.139.22|talk]]) 11:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly 78.86) |
Hi - thanks for implementing my suggested rewrite of the lead sentence of Ken Ham, and highlighting it to a wider audience. --[[Special:Contributions/94.193.139.22|94.193.139.22]] ([[User talk:94.193.139.22|talk]]) 11:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly 78.86) |
||
== AR Notification == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> [[User:Askahrc|The Cap'n]] ([[User talk:Askahrc|talk]]) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:44, 11 April 2014
Apologizing
Hi, At the List of Scientists.... AFD I erroneously posted a critical reply to your comment but have already self reverted. At casual glance it looked like you had added a new section to the FRINGE guideline, but I now understand you were just posting an updated version instead of something brand new. I still haven't loaded that history into my brain, just wanted to apologize for jumping the gun. I still might be critical later, or not, but first I should educate myself more. 'til then NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apology accepted and any and all enmity in the past between us is hereby completely forgotten. Incidentally, I did not !vote "delete" because many people I respect consistently !vote keep for this list (in some cases six time!). On that basis, I'd really like it if someone could convince me that it is okay for Wikipedia to have such a list. If you'd like to give it a crack, even here on my talkpage, go right ahead. jps (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's a subject for the AFD page or article talk page. Not sure if I'll address your specific qualms or not at this time. Caio. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's you!
Just now worked it out. I see you've been back a while now, but I didn't realise till now that you are "Previously". Good to see you around again and not only because we happen to share a similar view on List of scientists opposed to science. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for reporting Engelbrecht on FTN. I gave up Wikipedia. Let me know if I can be of any use. -Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly clear that that particular user is here mostly to advocate for his belief. That's not what most people who are active on this website thinks is appropriate. That's why there have been so many arbitrations on the subject. If he causes problems again, simply post the diffs at WP:AE and let the administrators handle it. jps (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, thanks a lot. I've added back AAH to my watchlist and will probably return to AE sooner or later. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Alfietucker (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metric expansion of space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dynamics, Event and Expansion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Name change?
Would it be possible for you to shorten your name? When I revert you, there's no room to leave a reason! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I might consider it. This is a good reason for a shorter name. Thanks. jps (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Re BLP and talk pages.
With regards to this comment: Discretionary sanctions have been laid at editors for less, i would point you at WMC's sanctions for calling such a group "septics". And it wasn't a threat, but rather a reminder of policy. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take my lumps if and when such rules get applied in such a fashion. I certainly understand the risks involved with this topic area. I'm glad that you aren't thinking of dragging me to WP:AE over this. Cheers! jps (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see why i should, we can all fall into that trap :) Note that i've erased such wordings from my own texts before pressing commit several times. But WP:BLP is an important aspect here, and it doesn't just protect those that we'd like it to, but also those that we may dislike for valid (or invalid) reasons. My advice here is: Every time you write a disparaging description of someone, stop, and rethink a way of getting the same idea over without that description :) --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- But just because denialists don't like to be called denialists doesn't mean it's a disparaging description. If I was in a conversation with someone and they told me directly, "look, don't use this particular word, it offends me" then I'm happy to no longer use the word. But there is no objective measure by which "denier" or "denialist" is somehow disparaging. It simply means they "deny" something. Yes, there's a lot of protestations about Holocaust Denial, but I don't think of that when I use the term and unless and until I actually come across another human being telling me that they want me to stop using the term to describe them personally, I don't think we have a problem here except that we are invoking a false premise of what is or is not "disparaging".
- What if I called them "Climate Change Rejectors"? I could do that. We can all play the euphemism treadmill game if we must.
- jps (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can't say that i disagree strongly. But ARBCC has set the precedents here. Do not use (what some) term as disparaging descriptions in this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see why i should, we can all fall into that trap :) Note that i've erased such wordings from my own texts before pressing commit several times. But WP:BLP is an important aspect here, and it doesn't just protect those that we'd like it to, but also those that we may dislike for valid (or invalid) reasons. My advice here is: Every time you write a disparaging description of someone, stop, and rethink a way of getting the same idea over without that description :) --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now that we are at the topic - should i place a {{Uw-canvass}} notice here, for this[1] violation of WP:CANVASS#Campaigning? --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would be rather nice if you would stop conflating disagreement with WP:IDONTHEARYOU. You've abundantly made your position clear over several AfD's and multiple discussion sections both now and in the past. There comes a point when you have to accept that people do not think the same as you, and that disagreements are indeed possible, even if they seem inexplicable to you. I rather suspect (in fact i'm certain) that we have much the same personal opinion about the people that our list navigates towards - but i do not agree with you on the aspect that we should clamp down on information regarding their existence. --Kim D. Petersen 00:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand we are at odds, and, as I said in my FTN posting, I simply do not understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that there are serious concerns which are simply ignored. I asked for secondary sources. The request is ignored. I asked for stricter criteria. The WP:SILENCE is only broken when it is implemented. I have seen some tiny movements by Merlinme and NewsEventsGuy toward understanding my position, but the entire discussion appears to me to be completely poisoned by an assumption that the list is fine. We need outside help, and a lot of it. That's why I asked at FTN. jps (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The silence comes from having explained our position to you several times, and your lack of compromise and consensus building. I've agreed with you that secondary sources proclaiming the people listed as sceptics is a potential improvement - but i do not share your views on this being the end-all of it. In fact i'll venture that you and i would disagree on which source to put the most reliance on, a secondary or a primary when it comes to a persons own opinion. Opinions are individual and they are best expressed by the person themselves - i've seen waaaaay to many scientists who agree with the scientific assessment being chalked up as sceptics (see for instance The Deniers which contain several who've denounced their inclusion (Solanki, Shaviv, Weiss) - not to mention those that kept their silence because they simply didn't care about Solomon's series). So in my view a complete look at the scientist, and their own words in context, is the only real way to ensure WP:BLP is upheld. I also agree that the scientist criteria should be tightened, for instance by ensuring that these really are active researchers, and not just someone who at some point got a PhD., but i do not agree with you on how much it should be tightened, nor do i unfortunately think that it could gain consensus (from experience: This is not the first time that this has been discussed).
- On your FTN notice though, you did not just ask for help... you presented a non-neutral description and called everyone who disagreed with you "fans". It is a bland example of campaign canvassing. Please WP:AGF, and if you do not understand other peoples position, then ask, and try to understand! --Kim D. Petersen 01:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- C'mon, Kim. This is the first time you've actually engaged with me in years instead of just snarkily posting one-liners. I'm not sure what brought about this change of attitude, but I welcome it. I'm glad you agree with secondary sources, but no one has offered even one! I mean, your mention of The Deniers is indicative of my problem: it's not a reliable source. I think that one may not exist. Certainly, a grand total of zero have been mentioned so far. So where, as they say, is the beef? What seems to have happened to you is that you've become taken in with the assumption that books by Solomon are admissible for use as reliable sources (they're not). The only thing I can understand is that you like the list. You want it around because you like to see who is a refuser, or whatever. I just don't think that's a good enough rationale for keeping this thing in Wikipedia. Put it in RationalWiki. Put it on a separate website. But please remove it from this place where it is just functioning as a coatrack that cannot escape toward intelligent analysis because of Wikipedia's rules. jps (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are quite welcome to start adding secondary sources to the individuals listed, i wouldn't stop you, i just don't agree that it is needed and thus can't see the worth of the effort. I've never claimed that The Deniers is reliable for this kind of information, in fact my entire point was that it isn't... so your point about me being "taken in" is remarkably off the point. And as for your rationalwiki nonsense: You seem to forget that i'm not alone in wanting this list - had i been - then one of the many AfD's would have succeeded... You paint it as if you have the TRUTH about the list, but reality is that large parts of the wikipedia community don't agree with you... --Kim D. Petersen 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Either we don't understand each other at all, or we're just missing something in what the other is thinking. I know you don't care if I add secondary sources. I cannot find any, is the problem. I've been asking for them for a while and I haven't received anything even remotely useful. If you have ideas, please let me know. I think you aren't "taken in" by Solomon, but why are you referencing his trash? I just don't understand it in a discussion about building content. I don't even understand why we have an article on that dreck.... but whatever.... I totally get that "large parts of the Wikipedia community don't agree", but I cannot understand where they're coming from. I've tried.... and failed (except I think I have determined that most of the people supporting the list are at least somewhat sympathetic to the people listed... not you and not a few others, but most of the commentators at the AfD). jps (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you cannot find secondary sources to attest that the members on the list really belong there, then i suggest that you are incompetent at google or have a different attitude towards what such a secondary source should specifically say. It took me all of 5 seconds to find secondary sources to support the first two additions on the list. --Kim D. Petersen 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- And no more than a minute more to find this, which from a cursory glance supports inclusion of several members on the list. --Kim D. Petersen 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Either we don't understand each other at all, or we're just missing something in what the other is thinking. I know you don't care if I add secondary sources. I cannot find any, is the problem. I've been asking for them for a while and I haven't received anything even remotely useful. If you have ideas, please let me know. I think you aren't "taken in" by Solomon, but why are you referencing his trash? I just don't understand it in a discussion about building content. I don't even understand why we have an article on that dreck.... but whatever.... I totally get that "large parts of the Wikipedia community don't agree", but I cannot understand where they're coming from. I've tried.... and failed (except I think I have determined that most of the people supporting the list are at least somewhat sympathetic to the people listed... not you and not a few others, but most of the commentators at the AfD). jps (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are quite welcome to start adding secondary sources to the individuals listed, i wouldn't stop you, i just don't agree that it is needed and thus can't see the worth of the effort. I've never claimed that The Deniers is reliable for this kind of information, in fact my entire point was that it isn't... so your point about me being "taken in" is remarkably off the point. And as for your rationalwiki nonsense: You seem to forget that i'm not alone in wanting this list - had i been - then one of the many AfD's would have succeeded... You paint it as if you have the TRUTH about the list, but reality is that large parts of the wikipedia community don't agree with you... --Kim D. Petersen 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- C'mon, Kim. This is the first time you've actually engaged with me in years instead of just snarkily posting one-liners. I'm not sure what brought about this change of attitude, but I welcome it. I'm glad you agree with secondary sources, but no one has offered even one! I mean, your mention of The Deniers is indicative of my problem: it's not a reliable source. I think that one may not exist. Certainly, a grand total of zero have been mentioned so far. So where, as they say, is the beef? What seems to have happened to you is that you've become taken in with the assumption that books by Solomon are admissible for use as reliable sources (they're not). The only thing I can understand is that you like the list. You want it around because you like to see who is a refuser, or whatever. I just don't think that's a good enough rationale for keeping this thing in Wikipedia. Put it in RationalWiki. Put it on a separate website. But please remove it from this place where it is just functioning as a coatrack that cannot escape toward intelligent analysis because of Wikipedia's rules. jps (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand we are at odds, and, as I said in my FTN posting, I simply do not understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that there are serious concerns which are simply ignored. I asked for secondary sources. The request is ignored. I asked for stricter criteria. The WP:SILENCE is only broken when it is implemented. I have seen some tiny movements by Merlinme and NewsEventsGuy toward understanding my position, but the entire discussion appears to me to be completely poisoned by an assumption that the list is fine. We need outside help, and a lot of it. That's why I asked at FTN. jps (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would be rather nice if you would stop conflating disagreement with WP:IDONTHEARYOU. You've abundantly made your position clear over several AfD's and multiple discussion sections both now and in the past. There comes a point when you have to accept that people do not think the same as you, and that disagreements are indeed possible, even if they seem inexplicable to you. I rather suspect (in fact i'm certain) that we have much the same personal opinion about the people that our list navigates towards - but i do not agree with you on the aspect that we should clamp down on information regarding their existence. --Kim D. Petersen 00:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
These 3 citations - cover at least a quarter of the names in the list:
- Antilla, Liisa (2005), "Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change" (PDF), Global Environmental Change (15): 338–352, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003
- Boykoff, Maxwell T.; Boykoff, Jules M. (2007), "Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage" (PDF), Geoforum, 38 (6): 1190–1204, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
- Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011), "10. Organized climate change denial" (PDF), in Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160, ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0
So i'm curious... you claim that "[you] cannot find any [secondary sources]".. but my question would be have you looked?! --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- These sources look really good for an article on climate change denial, but I'm having a hard time seeing how they justify the list per se. Still, this is the best I've gotten in a while, so I won't be looking this gift horse in the mouth. It'd be nice if you posted these sources on the actual article talkpage. jps (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- A) "justify the list" is a different subject than the one we were talking about. (that is notability, and that has already been established) B) They are already on the talkpage of the list. How about a response in the context we were talking within? --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what context? Are you asking whether or not I found these sources? No, I didn't. Then, they wouldn't have struck me as good sources anyway, though I understand why you think they are. jps (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- We were talking in the context of having an extra (secondary) reference to a person listed - not about justification of the list (which is a notability issue). So please explain why you wouldn't consider these good sources for such. It might help me better understand what it is that you are talking about. --Kim D. Petersen 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what context? Are you asking whether or not I found these sources? No, I didn't. Then, they wouldn't have struck me as good sources anyway, though I understand why you think they are. jps (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- A) "justify the list" is a different subject than the one we were talking about. (that is notability, and that has already been established) B) They are already on the talkpage of the list. How about a response in the context we were talking within? --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- These sources look really good for an article on climate change denial, but I'm having a hard time seeing how they justify the list per se. Still, this is the best I've gotten in a while, so I won't be looking this gift horse in the mouth. It'd be nice if you posted these sources on the actual article talkpage. jps (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you point me to the place where consensus wasn't reached on including scientists who don't have anything about their position on climate change in their biographies?
When i found this link[2] in response to your question "Can you point me to the place where consensus wasn't reached on including scientists who don't have anything about their position on climate change in their biographies?"[3]... i found the irony to be almost too hard to bear. Guess who started that discussion? And failed to get consensus? You did. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the consensus of that discussion is in agreement with my proposal. jps (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the consensus for, but i don't see the consensus against. But then again we have (another of your proposals in 2010)this which was a pretty clear rejection of the thing you just tried to bold into the list. --Kim D. Petersen 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'twould be nice btw. if when you comment on the list talk pages, you didn't act as if you've never been active on this list before, and as if these questions haven't been turned before. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where'd all those "oppose" people go? I haven't seen them active on the talkpage. Frankly, Wikipedia's consensus model if flawed if the various denial blogs can rally the troops to comment on any and all proposals. jps (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- As far as i can tell most of the "oppose" people are or were active wikipedians. And while i cannot rule out your conspiracy thinking of the "oppose" votes being gathered by somehow being canvassed on "various denial blogs" - i also cannot see any reason to believe that they were gathered that way. You fail to notice that the people opposing aren't generally denialist(s).. take for instance user:Dragons_flight (who was the first opposer), most certainly isn't one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, color me unimpressed. I have no understanding of why as serious encyclopedia would assume it important to follow the "consensus" of users from years ago who are not actively engaging today. jps (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus can change - no doubt about that. But you asked a specific question implying ignorance of such earlier incidents. Well color me amuzed when what fell on my eyes were your own attempts at reaching such a consensus.
- Now if you notice: My position hasn't changed much over that time. I still believe that our scientist criteria should be narrower. And i'd still !vote 'support' for a suggestion such as:
- At least one peer-reviewed paper in natural sciences on the broad topic (*) of climate change since the previous to last IPCC report. (*) Here: Oceanography, biology, glaciology, ... with climate change as a part of the paper - not just atmospheric sciences.
- which was my suggestion for such at the time. But it still has to get consensus, and the many times its been tried in the past, hasn't reached such. --Kim D. Petersen 12:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, color me unimpressed. I have no understanding of why as serious encyclopedia would assume it important to follow the "consensus" of users from years ago who are not actively engaging today. jps (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- As far as i can tell most of the "oppose" people are or were active wikipedians. And while i cannot rule out your conspiracy thinking of the "oppose" votes being gathered by somehow being canvassed on "various denial blogs" - i also cannot see any reason to believe that they were gathered that way. You fail to notice that the people opposing aren't generally denialist(s).. take for instance user:Dragons_flight (who was the first opposer), most certainly isn't one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where'd all those "oppose" people go? I haven't seen them active on the talkpage. Frankly, Wikipedia's consensus model if flawed if the various denial blogs can rally the troops to comment on any and all proposals. jps (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Still has to get consensus" is the place where we disagree. I think you have an excellent case and I don't see the argument for the alternative. In that case, it doesn't matter if a numerically large number of uninformed Wikipedians demand this or that. WP:LOCALCON cannot trump the general consensus outlined in Wikipedia policies outside of that shitshow. Just implement the change. jps (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is where we strongly disagree: You believe that the list is against policy, and i don't buy your arguments - and the community haven't bought them either. The whole idea that you (individually) can just push one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia aside (WP:CONSENSUS) because you personally belive that some policy is being breached - is simply to me unfathomable. --Kim D. Petersen 12:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just me. There are a lot of people who have contacted me both privately and publicly saying that they either have avoided completely or left after realizing how toxic the arguments are. Getting mad at the standard bearer is par for the course, but it's really idiotic when the person agrees with you and still tries to defend the "community" on the page that is clearly not aligning to best practices. jps (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, i know it is not just you. But that doesn't change that you couldn't get the community to agree when the community was asked, and it was asked during the AfD. Personally i respect consensus, even when i disagree with it - apparently you do not, which i have to say is not really a good attitude to have. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Nb. as a sceptic (generally speaking) you should be careful with statements such as "lots of people" and inferrences from this - self-selection and confirmation bias comes to mind as pertinent to that kind of statement. --Kim D. Petersen 13:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- N.b. you should be careful with statements about what you believe what the "community" "agrees". On any AfD, the judgment call is by an admin. One person. See WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am very careful about such statements. I've only referred to the AfD's where the judgement call matches what i've said. And i've answered your question as to previous discussions .... So i'm sorry the kettle might be grey or chartreuse - but it ain't black. --Kim D. Petersen 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you were as careful as you claim to be you wouldn't be engaging in pedantry and snide remarks based on personal and subjective evaluations of what "consensus" on this crazy website means. You are making statements like, "i don't buy your arguments - and the community haven't bought them either." as though there was some objective metric by which this can be determined. This is your personal opinion, but you are treating it as though it is plainly obvious and then getting snippy when I do the same with my own arguments. You can't have it both ways. You can either be magnanimous and humble in your criticisms or you can be an ass. jps (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah! For that particular metric there is a determining factor: The results of the AfD discussions. Therefore i can say with confidence that the consensus view hasn't been that the list breaches policy... no personal opinion involved - unless you are talking about the closing admins. --Kim D. Petersen 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you were as careful as you claim to be you wouldn't be engaging in pedantry and snide remarks based on personal and subjective evaluations of what "consensus" on this crazy website means. You are making statements like, "i don't buy your arguments - and the community haven't bought them either." as though there was some objective metric by which this can be determined. This is your personal opinion, but you are treating it as though it is plainly obvious and then getting snippy when I do the same with my own arguments. You can't have it both ways. You can either be magnanimous and humble in your criticisms or you can be an ass. jps (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am very careful about such statements. I've only referred to the AfD's where the judgement call matches what i've said. And i've answered your question as to previous discussions .... So i'm sorry the kettle might be grey or chartreuse - but it ain't black. --Kim D. Petersen 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- N.b. you should be careful with statements about what you believe what the "community" "agrees". On any AfD, the judgment call is by an admin. One person. See WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, i know it is not just you. But that doesn't change that you couldn't get the community to agree when the community was asked, and it was asked during the AfD. Personally i respect consensus, even when i disagree with it - apparently you do not, which i have to say is not really a good attitude to have. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Nb. as a sceptic (generally speaking) you should be careful with statements such as "lots of people" and inferrences from this - self-selection and confirmation bias comes to mind as pertinent to that kind of statement. --Kim D. Petersen 13:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just me. There are a lot of people who have contacted me both privately and publicly saying that they either have avoided completely or left after realizing how toxic the arguments are. Getting mad at the standard bearer is par for the course, but it's really idiotic when the person agrees with you and still tries to defend the "community" on the page that is clearly not aligning to best practices. jps (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No references for this guy outside of pseudoscience books and the references in the article are from his own website. As you have dealt with some physics articles thought I would ask you. I think a delete or redirect would be suitable. Goblin Face (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the late Marmet's position as a scientist who liked to take "maverick positions" (to be charitable). He's much more notable for his mass spectrometer rather than his other suggestions. I think we should do some santizing along the lines of what we did for John Dobson (amateur astronomer) . jps (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think he is obviously notable as a crank but the problem is that there seems to be not a single reliable book that mentions him. I had a look round he advocated a tired light mechanism. If no references can be found it might be worth redirecting his article to the tired light article or mentioning a line about him on there. Goblin Face (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for being a noob I still have never looked up how to submit an afd. If you could submit this I would vote. I have spent hours looking sadly can't find a single reliable source that mentions him apart from his own stuff or conspiracy theory websites. Goblin Face (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Scientific community
Hi, the phrase "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" in WP:FRINGE/PS is surely not intended to indicate that a global poll was conducted among all the scientists of the world. However that is not far from the interpretation that some seem to hold, with the upshot being that the thing they like is not called pseudoscience.
I think if something has gained no interest from the scientific community, and independent assessments have called it pseudoscience, then it falls under "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". There's no global poll, but there is the mass of "don't care" votes along with a few explanations of why the idea is not accepted.
Possibly WP:FRINGE could use some clarification, though I'm not sure what form it would take. I think the first step is to decide how to characterize "novelty theory". You believe "considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community" is inaccurate because the idea is not widespread. Putting aside that a reliable source contains that exact phrase, I can still sympathize with wanting to avoid the "global poll" suggestiveness. It seems we need an equivalent phrase without that drawback. vzaak 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, but blame arbcomm for that awful wording as they were the ones who chose it. You could ask for an amendment of Wikipedia:ARB/PS#Generally_considered_pseudoscience, if you'd like (and some of the other terrible content rulings listed there as well, while you're at it). Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment is the right place. Convince them to change the wording or vacate that and I think that phrasing would uncontroversially change. jps (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be afraid to make such a request without suggesting a fix. The phrase "by the scientific community" does have some recognition as a non-literal concept, as in the McKenna source.[4] What is the alternative? Just brainstorming, "Considered pseudoscience by the standards of science". I don't know. vzaak 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- There isn't a good alternative wording because of the demarcation problem. The general solution is similar to the one proposed by Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". jps (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, yes (there's a recent book dedicated to the demarcation problem,[5] edited by Massimo Pigliucci), but it doesn't have to be "good", just "less bad". The "global poll" idea often bogs down talk page discussions. vzaak 15:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The "global poll" nonsense is exactly why I'm not all that enthusiastic about replacing the wording but rather think it should simply be removed. The idea should be that pseudoscience simply conforms to the accepted definitions of pseudoscience. We can tell when that's the case when reliable sources have indicated it is pseudoscience. That's really they best we can do. jps (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Check that... if you changed it to "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" that might do the trick. jps (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I brought up the issue before with arbcom to no avail. See [6]. From what I understand, the basic response is that its not policy (since they can't make content decisions), but the principles they operated on during the particular case, so it wouldn't make sense to change their text on the arbcom pages. edit: Archive searching also really sucks. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
"Generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" is definitely an improvement. From what I understand from Wolfie's comment and link, since the principles explain the findings, going back to change the principles would not make sense in the context of a closed case. It seems a change to WP:FRINGE would be the thing to do, if anything is to be done. That would leave the issue of {{ArbComPseudoscience}}, which I suppose would be marked as old/deprecated.
Still nagging is what phrasing to use in the article text -- a version of "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" devoid of WP lingo. vzaak 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actual text in the main WP:FRINGE page can be boldly changed. I've made such an attempt just now. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though it wasn't clear, by "article text" I was referring to an article covering a pseudoscience topic. "Generally considered pseudoscience" is too broad, "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" has the "global poll" problem, and "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" has the WP lingo problem. vzaak 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So... good discussion. I think the problem is with the proposal that one calls something "a pseudoscience". There are very few subjects which are strictly a pseudoscience. Phrenology and creation science are the only two that come readily to mind. Calling a subject "a pseudoscience" should be reserved for the case where the entirety of the investigation is couched in terms of a scientific veneer while being bunk. Parapsychology would be a pseudoscience if not for the work of people like Richard Wiseman who steadfastly insist that skeptical debunking and analysis of why people believe in the paranormal are part of the subject. The same goes for ufology. Other topics such as cold fusion can be defined completely independent of the pseudoscientific claims that get made in the context of the idea. So I think it is important that we remove many of the statements that certain topics are "pseudoscience". For example, "morphic resonance" is a description of an idea that Rupert Sheldrake has. It is only an idea, it isn't a proposed course of study or an investigatory line per se. As such it is not a pseudoscience, but the claims that Sheldrake and his supporters make about evidence for morphic resonance and the theoretical justifications for it are pseudoscientific. See the difference?
The issue is further exacerbated by the "global poll" issues when discussing the so-called "scientific community" or "scientific consensus". This kind of verbiage is as peculiarly Wikipedian as is any appeal to "reliable sources" or "notability". We should try to remove it where we find it. In many instances, it is possible to fairly identify the pseudoscientific claims that are part and parcel to the subject and then simply describe why they are pseudoscientific without problems with particular attribution or weird sweeping statements that don't make much sense anyway.
For example, I just went through and modified astral projection this morning. [7]. Before the article was making claims that astral projection is a "pseudoscience". It isn't! It's just a description of a belief that some people have. Some people use pseudoscientific claims to support their belief, and that should be described and prominently so since that's what the most reliable sources on the subject emphasize, but to call it a "pseudoscience" is a category error. Additionally, to say that the "scientific community considers it a pseudoscience" is an unnecessary and awkward anthropomorphization of a nebulous society... and is sorta incorrect to boot. Scientists and intelligent people who have evaluated the pseudoscientific claims associated with astral projection have pointed out why those claims are pseudoscientific. That's the kind of wording we should be supporting here. The rest of this kind of "Scientific consensus is that this thing is a pseudoscience" should be kicked to the curb, IMHO.
jps (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Remember
Remember this editor who was debated with you about the GERAC article at the fringe noticeboard. Now he wants me banned. They want me banned too. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a shitshow. I'm sorry about that. I commented with my rather angry feelings about this. jps (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Did you see this? Involved editors are piling up on me. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly swimming upstream. I would say the best thing to do right now is voluntarily topic ban yourself for some period of time to try to get some of these things shut down. They're out for blood, and it's yours they're after. jps (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- @QuackGuru what has completely baffled me is why you have offered to help the two editors you were previously opposing get the GERAC article into whatever shape they want.[8][9] Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think I may have shortened the GERAC article too much and I am trying to compromise. I think a compromise may work. I also made changes to chiropractic. Here was the previous version. No matter what I do someone will not like what I do. Question. Do you want me banned? QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note. Alexbrn and I have a major disagreement at the chiropractic article. He wants to delete most of the spinal manipulation research but I want to keep the information. See Talk:Chiropractic#A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Alexbrn, I think QG may be operating on a higher level of cynicism with regards to this website than you might appreciate. QG can correct me if I'm wrong. I call such behavior "Wikipediavellian". It's kinda what you get when you mix WP:POINT, WP:AGF, and WP:CON together into one soup. I take QG at his word because he generally sticks to doing exactly what he says he's going to do. jps (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's actually about what I thought Alexbrn was getting at. "Wikipediavellian" sounds like trying to take WP:BATTLEGROUND to Art of War levels. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- And if you're right, then I feel totally comfortable with a topic ban. The possibility that you're right helped tilt me toward a topic ban. Mostly I decided to support one because I doubt QG can change very much, based on the history, although he has changed very slowly -- so I could be wrong. Whether "Wikipediavellian" or not, I don't doubt his sincere desire to help the project, nor do I doubt yours, although the Wikipedia-villain stuff is way too cynical and gamey. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's actually about what I thought Alexbrn was getting at. "Wikipediavellian" sounds like trying to take WP:BATTLEGROUND to Art of War levels. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- We are not here to bash chiropractors or acupuncturists. Wikipedia NPOV policy should matter. Bias articles are crappy articles. I try to keep articles neutral. That gets me into hot water on both sides. QuackGuru (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- @QuackGuru what has completely baffled me is why you have offered to help the two editors you were previously opposing get the GERAC article into whatever shape they want.[8][9] Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly swimming upstream. I would say the best thing to do right now is voluntarily topic ban yourself for some period of time to try to get some of these things shut down. They're out for blood, and it's yours they're after. jps (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Did you see this? Involved editors are piling up on me. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a good example of trying to keep the article neutral and balanced:
A 2010 report found that spinal manipulation therapies are effective for low back pain, neck pain, migraine and cervicogenic headache and a number of extremity joint conditions.[134] Commenting on this study, Edzard Ernst stated that it was a notorious example of a pseudo-systematic review that omitted evidence, for instance, of negative primary studies.[135]
Rather than delete the 2010 systemic review I added a response by Ernst. See Talk:Chiropractic#Fringe journal or MEDRS compliant.3F.
I think the source is MEDRS compliant but there is a disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, these are rather stylistic matters. One might think that it would be better to go along with a default argument of "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary". That's a slight difference in philosophy. If Wikipedia were completely empty, that would not do anyone any harm. I'm most concerned with how Wikipedia can do harm rather than anything else. jps (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never was told about the "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary" to editing. I was editing to the NPOV approach. I think what Enrst said about the 2010 systematic review is informative but other editors can decide what to delete and what to include. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- My problem is that you've been defending fringe journals, invoking WP:MEDASSESS for them, launching multiple threads with titles like "editors must not delete RS" (about crappy articles), asserting that chiropractic is "not fringe" and generally creating a high-velocity shitstorm in several places in support of your line, which makes sensible editing all but impossible. I haven't said I want you banned (though you complain elsewhere that I have): it does seem though that you are doing your best to persuade me that you should be ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never was told about the "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary" to editing. I was editing to the NPOV approach. I think what Enrst said about the 2010 systematic review is informative but other editors can decide what to delete and what to include. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, these are rather stylistic matters. One might think that it would be better to go along with a default argument of "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary". That's a slight difference in philosophy. If Wikipedia were completely empty, that would not do anyone any harm. I'm most concerned with how Wikipedia can do harm rather than anything else. jps (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: I made this prediction. This is in a article. "a Cochrane review found it ineffective for low back pain." This was the previous text. "A Cochrane review found good evidence that spinal manipulation therapy was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain.[24]"
The source does not say that SMT is ineffective. This is OR and there is a lot more text in the lede that is OR. I should not try to fix everything because I don't WP:OWN the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture
I did a quick check of the edit history. Take a look at this edit. The text was not redundant. "7% to 12% of treatments" was a different source. The "adverse effects rate of 11.8%" was a study for children.
Take a look at the current text using the same source for children:
When used on children, acupuncture carries a modest (11.8%) risk of adverse advents, thought to arise mostly from substandard practice.[22] The harms are mostly mild in nature (e.g. bruising or bleeding) but on rare occasions very serious (e.g. cardiac rupture or hemoptysis).[22] The same review found 279 adverse events, of which 25 were serious.[22] There was limited research to draw definite conclusions about the overall safety of pediatric acupuncture.[22]
I can't imagine what the article would look like if editors could delete relevant text if good editors stopped editing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this correct?
Have a look here, first comment -- I'm pretty sure you have Mallexikon isn't affiliated with acu/TCM in any way and that you have them confused with someone else. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, but the place to do it is not on wiki. jps (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Understood; WP:OUTING does take precedence over much else. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
See User:Middle 8#Things contentious: "Conflict of interest (COI): None declared. A couple of editors have suggested that my being an acupuncturist causes me to have a COI, because I might profit by making acupuncture look good, or something -- as that couldn't happen with other professions."
Being an acupuncturist is not a COI according to Middle8 but according to Wikipedia's WP:COI that is the exact definition of a COI. Now it is more than "A couple of editors". The undeclared COI editor is trying his hardest to get me banned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- As far as COI goes, the "exact definition" of COI is not at all clear when it comes to profession, as opposed to one's specific employer. But have a look at WP:COIN#Acupuncture and weigh in. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- QG, I know that my deciding to support an indef ban pissed you off, and understandably so, but (a) your swing from conciliatory to combative makes me wonder how sincere the former is, and looks retaliatory, and (b) I didn't decide to support an indef topic ban lightly, and I'm still not sure if it's the way to go -- maybe a finite one is fine, or a self-imposed topic-area vacation, if you're serious about that. Please see my comment just above, and on ANI. It's obvious from your block log that you've gradually improved. What are your thoughts on taking a break? Why did you post this? Do you still feel that way? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Middle 8 deleted the Adams 2011 reference and added duplication to the article and on the talk page he said: @QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was an unbelievable IDHT and this is just more. There was no discussion to delete the Adams 2011 reference at all. He claims it was "unbelievable IDHT".
- White, A. (2004). "A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture". Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society. 22 (3): 122–133. PMID 15551936. See Acupuncture#cite note-White 2004-158.
While he deleted the Adams 2011 reference he also added the 2004 Acupuncture in medicine journal written by the trade. Middle 8 is claiming there was a conduct problem when he was initially ignoring what he did and ignoring my comments about the duplication. Middle 8, you were causing and ignoring the problems. See WP:IDHT. Of course he wants me banned because he wants to do more edits like this left unchecked. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate how Middle 8 comports himself on this website at all but, so far, no outsiders seem to care that he thwarts WP:COI on a regular basis. I'm not sure what more to tell you. jps (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let's find out: WP:COIN#Acupuncture --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was surprised it survived the AFD. If it went for a second AFD is would likely be deleted. I merged the content to here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you are doing yourself no favor by beating these dead horses again; it's in fact more IDHT, and qualifies as evidence in the RfC. All of this was covered, and resolved, here. Just read it! My deletion of Adams was accidental, and I said so and thanked you for fixing it -- it is major bad faith (and major IDHT) to bring it up again. How could you possibly bring it up here without being careless or disingenuous? And yes, there was consensus to restore White 2004, here -- at least five editors agreed, and you were the only holdout, based on an unsound reason (it's all in the thread, and it will all be in the RfC soon). A reasonable person who read the latter thread -- should they be able to suffer through it -- would easily spot the IDHT. Like, every time someone points it out. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Middle 8, Conflict of interest is a policy because mistakes like the ones you made are easily seen in different light when you have a conflict of interest. This is precisely why I requested that you stick to the talkpage of articles. It avoids this kind of impropriety. Now you are up in arms because QG is complaining about edits you made which you really shouldn't have been making in the first place. Do you see the problem? It's not going to go away. Even if you succeed in forcing QG out other editors will follow and eventually you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of a Wikipedia show trial. I think you have valuable things to add to the conversation. We disagree strongly about the propriety of your professions, but, in the end your perspective is valuable because you have insider information on how acupuncture and TCM get applied on the ground. Nevertheless, your continued insistence on inserting yourself politically into these issues is nothing but untoward in my estimation. I think you are the one in need of disengagement. jps (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Continued insistence" re which issues exactly? Sanctioning QG? Please. You know if Guy/JzG is annoyed, it's real. Re the idea that my cut-and-paste error was somehow underhanded: you're either not reading the actual content on the talk page or pretending not to. Everything I said above is accurate. Just read the threads. And please see my and Guy Macon's comments at the RfC talk page: I am not bound to abide by your interpretation of COI; I am bound by the community's, which (at this time) doesn't support yours. That's why I filed at COI/N. I will acknowledge and abide by the result of that (or whatever the community consensus is, if that venue is inconclusive); will you, with respect to further commenting on whether I have a COI? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in signing blood pacts with you, Middle 8. You are operating in a completely different way on this website than myself and see no problem with adding and removing content from articles about controversial subjects as you see fit even while, in real life, you promote those self-same topics. This is not something I will let up on until you back down from changing article content. jps (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Blood pacts"? "Not let up on" your version of COI irrespective of community consensus? This is all battleground thinking. We certainly do have different approaches. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was accused of skewing the facts but that is absolutely false. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong venues, QG -- please weigh in at the RfC. And I appreciate it if you stop hijacking threads I'm involved in. Please post in appropriate venues. Take care. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in signing blood pacts with you, Middle 8. You are operating in a completely different way on this website than myself and see no problem with adding and removing content from articles about controversial subjects as you see fit even while, in real life, you promote those self-same topics. This is not something I will let up on until you back down from changing article content. jps (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Continued insistence" re which issues exactly? Sanctioning QG? Please. You know if Guy/JzG is annoyed, it's real. Re the idea that my cut-and-paste error was somehow underhanded: you're either not reading the actual content on the talk page or pretending not to. Everything I said above is accurate. Just read the threads. And please see my and Guy Macon's comments at the RfC talk page: I am not bound to abide by your interpretation of COI; I am bound by the community's, which (at this time) doesn't support yours. That's why I filed at COI/N. I will acknowledge and abide by the result of that (or whatever the community consensus is, if that venue is inconclusive); will you, with respect to further commenting on whether I have a COI? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me know what you think about this guy, I can't find a single reliable reference. I think it should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit restrictions
I do agree to the edit restrictions and other suggestions you and other editors have proposed. Maybe you could be my mentor. Thanks for your help in this matter. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Political reasons may prevent me from being your "mentor" which, as a rule, is a fraught position at this website. Nevertheless, I think that edit restrictions (even self-imposed) will go a long way to diffusing some of the controversy surrounding your activity. Try to make your edits count before hitting "Save Page". This will go a long way. Soon, it will be clear who is appreciative of good work and who is just complaining about content. Those who are in the latter category will be systematically marginalized. Slow going improvements will likely win you allies in some of those who have opposed you until now. You do good work. You just need to sell it a bit better. jps (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Outing
You have made a number of statements about the real-world idendity of user Mallexikon. Please desist from this, it is WP:OUTING and is not permitted. It remains against policy whether or not the statements are true. Continuing to do this may result in a block. SpinningSpark 15:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Umm what in particular do you think is problematic? jps (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind. You've rev-deleted it from the database so it's impossible to tell and, I presume, you couldn't tell me even if you remembered what it was! jps (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't play cute, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am willing to block you if you keep it up. SpinningSpark 00:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting that you responded in such a fashion. You aren't allowed to block on the basis of playing cute, incidentally. jps (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is there some reason you are trolling SpinningSpark? If you think they did something inappropriate, just say so. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi jps. I have no clue what this is about but I trust there are better ways of approaching this. Let's de-escalate. There are no benefits in the current course. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do think the admin did something highly inappropriate. But the last time I tried at this website to explain how a different admin did something inappropriate, all I got was sound and fury. I am not aware of any safe way to accuse an admin of misconduct on this website. If someone would like to show me where one can file a complaint without the risk of the rabble crying WP:BOOMERANG, I'd be happy to do the right thing, as it were. De-escalation would be wonderful as well, but when an entire series of edits have been rev-deleted, it makes it extremely difficult to explain or understand exactly what's going on. Friends here are wise to tell me not to moon the admin, I suppose, but understand that when one is accused of wrongdoing as above with no chance of appeal because the evidence is all inaccessible, one feels a bit like one's participating in a dystopian fantasy world. jps (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you are really having difficulty grasping what it is you did, you can discuss it with me by e-mail. However, I think the real situation is that you do know, but don't agree it is a problem. SpinningSpark 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting that you responded in such a fashion. You aren't allowed to block on the basis of playing cute, incidentally. jps (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't play cute, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am willing to block you if you keep it up. SpinningSpark 00:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@jps: You could email me or Dr.K. and get our guaranteed-perfect opinions. However, you must know that any hint of probing personal information regarding an editor is strictly prohibited, so if the essence of a message would be "X posted that Y has a COI because in real life ..." we can skip the email because that is absolutely prohibited and, if repeated, will correctly lead to an indefinite block until there is a plausible undertaking to never use that path. I fully support the WP:OUTING policy, although I agree that it leads to very unfortunate problems when a COI arises (I'm speculating about the COI—I saw nothing of the discussion leading to this). Wikipedia has problems—that is known—but nibbling out OUTING will not benefit the community. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- "nibbling out OUTING will not benefit the community". So you say, but I think that remains to be seen. If everyone used their names, I would wager that the number of issues on wikipedia would be substantially reduced (although I have no desire to unilaterally do so) and wikipedia would approach being like a real encyclopedia. That said, I would suggest no OUTING even if there is a COI for the reason of threatening admins, Second Quantization (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) But is it "outing" to say something broad like "Editor X is a cardiologist in real life" ? I thought outing was posting information specific enough to allow an editor to be identified IRL - the examples in the policy are "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2014
- Oh dear. Posting any personal information about an editor (not currently disclosed on en.wikipedia by that editor), whether correct or not, whether speculation or not, is prohibited by the WP:OUTING policy. And apart from that, saying something like "editor X might be a cardiologist" is creepy. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- "But is it "outing" to say something broad like "Editor X is a cardiologist in real life" ? I thought outing was posting information specific enough to allow an editor to be identified IRL - the examples in the policy are "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information"." This seems to depend ENTIRELY on which side of an argument you're on. For example an editor here some years ago deliberately 'outed' himself (probably and ego thing), only to then cry IRL harassment and threats and tried to re-hide his identity. My own hunch was, that his university did not like him misrepresenting himself on Wikipedia as a professor and other disreputable behavior and so told him to pull his head in (though this is purely speculation on my part). At a later point in time, I came along and clearly recognized the antagonistic behavior of the same editor and on stating that elsewhere on line the same person had had personal interaction with both myself and a person whose BLP I was trying to improve, he denied any COI using weasely wormy statements but never really refuting my accusation. Nevertheless, I was warned against any outing behavior (though I had not indulged in same) whilst the wankerpedian I refer to kept on about his normal disruptive style of editing. My point is it matters not how closely you follow the rules and guidelines, if a bad editor has lots of friends here, she'll keep hassling you until you just give up. Most conscientious and responsible editors have a life outside Wikipedia and don't have time for the childish stunts pulled here endlessly. Davesmith au (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Posting any personal information about an editor (not currently disclosed on en.wikipedia by that editor), whether correct or not, whether speculation or not, is prohibited by the WP:OUTING policy. And apart from that, saying something like "editor X might be a cardiologist" is creepy. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) But is it "outing" to say something broad like "Editor X is a cardiologist in real life" ? I thought outing was posting information specific enough to allow an editor to be identified IRL - the examples in the policy are "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2014
- You've changed the question subtly from an "is a" to a "might be a", so it's not really a fair comparison. I should note that I think Outing is unfair until such a time as everyone publicly discloses their identity, which I think would be preferable. I think requiring real names and setting the sources standard to academic sources would utterly transform wikipedia for the better. Second Quantization (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
acupuncture
Responding to this here, as it is off topic of the article's content. Do I think neuroscience and acupuncture are on the same footing? absolutely not! what i am doing is trying to get a sense of how you reason on a talk page. talking about sources is a great first step, to do that. and it is also the starting point for building content. what your linked-to remark, makes pretty clear, is that it is going to be hard going. that you would draw vast differences between two professional societies based on their underlying professions, is an eyebrow raiser. a professional society is a professional society, right? a professional society for X will seek to get people to become X, help train people doing X to do it better, try to get more prestige and money for X etc etc. True for cops, plumbers, neuroscientists, acupuncturists. and you find honest cops, and bad cops, etc etc. However!-- I can make sense out of your drawing such a vast difference, if I imagine equating all acupuncturists with say, criminals or carnies. Then their "professional society" is really just a mafia... but if that is where you are coming from.... like i said, eyebrow raiser.
that said, we are probably going to be aligned in a lot of conversations - i spend most of my wikitime working on health-related content, mostly moderating too-strong bullshitty statements; in the real world, and especially in the biomedical world, there is a lot that is unknown - a lot that is grey - and much bullshit is generated when people try to make things too black or white. (X is toxic and kills babies; or Y is a cure all). i follow the science. so to the extent that people want to make strong claims that "acupuncture is effective for X" and there isn't data to support that from the best and most recent MEDRS sources available, i will work to have things stated with appropriate toned down nuance; or if folks start talking about qi like it is as material as blood or atp... that will not fly with me. (that was a nice rhyming triplet there)
but to the extent that there is ax-grinding the other way... well we will see! i don't have a crystal ball and i don't know how things will turn out. and i always hope for the best, and look for hands, not axes. in any case, see you on Talk! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- A professional society most certainly is not a professional society. The BFRO is not the AAAS. We were actually not talking about the societies themselves anyway. We were talking about whether the journals that are sponsored by respective societies are reliable. I have no doubt that a trade journal sponsored by the BFRO is going to be doing a good job promoting the careers and livelihoods of its members just as journals sponsored by the AAAS do a similarly good job promoting the careers and livelihoods of its members. However Science (magazine) is a lot more reliable than The Bigfoot Field Journal. That one's obvious, but the comparison is apt. The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote via propaganda. I'm not saying that the AAAS doesn't engage in propaganda, but they don't do it as a matter of intent in their flagship journals. The acupuncture journals cannot help but do that because they have nothing else to base their rhetoric upon. Sure, they will dress up their arguments in "evidence basis", but at the end of the day they do not permit the basic criticism that is necessary for reliable research and identification of measurable phenomena to enter their (pardon my Wikipedish) walled gardens. That's just how it is. There's really not much more to it than that. The nice thing is that Wikipedia has in place guidelines and policies that allow us to see these fronts for what they are and dismiss them properly. jps (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- ok so my eyebrow has now raised all the way up. so jps, i hear you when you say that ~some~ acupuncture folks make fringe claims that are unscientific. however i hope you would agree that a hypothesis that "acupuncture is effective for treating migraine" is indeed falsifiable. and i hope you would agree that experimental design is a bitch in these fields. and further i hope you would agree that most clinical studies that have been done are too small and too poorly controlled to yield really useful data. what that leaves me with, at least, is that in many cases for acupuncture, the killer experiments have not been done that falsify a given hypothesis. and i hope you know that for many drug and device interventions, tested with great designs and big populations by very smart people and funded by smart investors, we end up with data that is hard to evaluate. i have read the transcripts of many an FDA panel reviewing NDAs and PMAs, and the amount of agonizing that goes on is amazing as they ask themselves, is it safe enough, and is it effective enough - is it it valid for me to even decide given this data? and even after the best trials and careful analysis are done, we sometimes don't discover serious toxicities until a drug is put on the market and used by millions (e.g avandia). The point of all that is that clinical trial science is difficult and messy. There is a "finish line" of "safe enough and effective enough for X" - I am not by any means to trying to fuzzify that away. Experts can indeed look at a set of clinical data and judge "yep, safe enough and effective enough for X", and when something has not crossed that line we definitely need to be clear about that. But that remains the best judgement we can make given the data at hand.
- And what I am trying to say, is that you are painting with too broad a brush, too thumpingly - in a way that is unsupportable in the real world - when you write "they are basing their ideas on proposals that ...have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote...". (pause - as that was a mighty broad statement.) I want to say to you that, from my perspective, that particular belief is just that - a belief; it is unscientific. It is as unscientific as a belief that "acupuncture will one day prove its effectiveness for many things." (i am very carefully not speaking about the underlying theories in TCM but about testing its effectiveness for any indication) Please hear me -- Neither belief (for or against) should be influencing the discussion in Wikipedia and to the extent that it is, this is WP:ADVOCACY, right? In my view, your belief and your advocacy for it, is making the conversation on the article harder than it needs to be. You are making some reasonable arguments based on PAG, but already on Talk, as here, you have spent considerable time and space offering me series of statements, thumpingly, based on your belief, and not on the science or the sources. You are clearly a very smart guy - please hear me when I say that I am not talking about the soundness of your reasoning, but rather about your assumptions and goals. I am asking you to check your beliefs at the door and to proceed less thumpingly, and with more nuance and care, and to base your arguments on Talk more carefully on sources and PAG and less on your beliefs. Would you please try to do that? It would be great to reach consensus and settle the page, but the more the axes are in play on either side, the more impossible that becomes. I do value your work to keep FRINGE out of wikipedia, very much, btw. Thanks for listening and for talking.Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I say Russell's teapot does not exist, is that just an expression of "belief" ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- i am trying to have a difficult conversation here, alexbrn, and you are off topic. you are welcome to participate but please be productive. jps boldly stated his belief that "The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified." That belief (not the acupuncturists) is the teapot under discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I meant to be on topic, and to the point! You wrote that jps' position was based "based on [his] belief, and not on the science or the sources." But for certain things it is more basic than that - Russell proposed there was a teapot orbiting the sun; acupuncturists have proposed that the human body has a system of energy channels mirroring the rivers of China, into which you can insert needles to cure disease. Both obvious bollocks, and we can stop there -- that anyway is the view of many scientists (we mention a couple but could mention more) and is (I think) jps' view. I don't think this is a "belief" but an insistence that basic science, reason and logic must be the foundation on which anything further is built. Wikipedia recognizes the phenomenon of "obvious pseudoscience". However, since some people argue that acupuncture is not "obvious pseudoscience" our article in fact takes a very soft view of it and entertains the investigative work that has been done. In any case, WP:FRINGE applies and its guidance that we use independent sources is important to keep the article neutral, I think. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- i am trying to have a difficult conversation here, alexbrn, and you are off topic. you are welcome to participate but please be productive. jps boldly stated his belief that "The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified." That belief (not the acupuncturists) is the teapot under discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I say Russell's teapot does not exist, is that just an expression of "belief" ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- And what I am trying to say, is that you are painting with too broad a brush, too thumpingly - in a way that is unsupportable in the real world - when you write "they are basing their ideas on proposals that ...have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote...". (pause - as that was a mighty broad statement.) I want to say to you that, from my perspective, that particular belief is just that - a belief; it is unscientific. It is as unscientific as a belief that "acupuncture will one day prove its effectiveness for many things." (i am very carefully not speaking about the underlying theories in TCM but about testing its effectiveness for any indication) Please hear me -- Neither belief (for or against) should be influencing the discussion in Wikipedia and to the extent that it is, this is WP:ADVOCACY, right? In my view, your belief and your advocacy for it, is making the conversation on the article harder than it needs to be. You are making some reasonable arguments based on PAG, but already on Talk, as here, you have spent considerable time and space offering me series of statements, thumpingly, based on your belief, and not on the science or the sources. You are clearly a very smart guy - please hear me when I say that I am not talking about the soundness of your reasoning, but rather about your assumptions and goals. I am asking you to check your beliefs at the door and to proceed less thumpingly, and with more nuance and care, and to base your arguments on Talk more carefully on sources and PAG and less on your beliefs. Would you please try to do that? It would be great to reach consensus and settle the page, but the more the axes are in play on either side, the more impossible that becomes. I do value your work to keep FRINGE out of wikipedia, very much, btw. Thanks for listening and for talking.Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- first, and again. the goal of my writing here was to ask jps to change his behavior on Talk, and you are definitely distracting from that. but as the disruption has happened, let's see it through. i very very specifically said above, which I will now make bold since you ignored it i am very carefully not speaking about the underlying theories in TCM but about testing its effectiveness for any indication The effectiveness of acupuncture for any given indication is a scientific question - a testable hypothesis. You and others may not care enough about the question to test it (and i would be very sympathetic to that choice) but the underlying theory is not what I am talking about. To the best of my understanding of the most current MEDRS sources, the scientific statement on the effectiveness of acupuncture would be something like "The data we have to date is generally poor, and to the extent it can be interpreted at all, acupuncture seems to have the same effect as placebo in most indications." What we are discussing here, is jps statement of his belief that: "The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote via propaganda." That is the statement of belief under discussion. With respect to claims for effectiveness of acupuncture, which again, is what i am talking about, those claims are definitely falsifiable, and there is no end to the experiments that can be done in the future to test them. It is totally valid to say "I believe that those experiments will yield uninterpretable data for the most part and to the extent they do yield good data, they will falsify the hypothesis". But that belief - any belief - especially when it drives fierce discussion - has no place on wikipedia. And it really has no place in an article discussing a specific set of acupuncture clinical trials - scientific experiments testing hypotheses. This is the ax I am asking him to put down. Can you not see the difference? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- now i will address the underlying theories of TCM and other prescientific theories of the body that persist to this day. Writing about these in a truly neutral way is difficult; writing about them on Wikipedia, where anybody can edit, is really really hard. I understand these articles get very battlegroundy as scientifically illiterate people want to make absurd claims about them and I have been involved some in keeping quackery out. I get it! I value quack-fighting on Wikipedia a lot and value the contributors who do it - it can be exasperating and it take tenacity to stick with it. Nonetheless, I sometimes find that allies in that work make things harder than necessary. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
First of all, there is no sense in which TCM and acupuncture are "prescientific". This implies that we don't have the understanding or the machinery to determine whether or not they work as claim. We absolutely do have that machinery and it has been applied with consistent outcomes. I think I was abundantly clear. Acupuncture either has been falsified or is unfalsifiable. We are not here to talk about eventualities or inventing claims that are subject to falsifiability. That is a never ending charade and falsification is not a perpetual contract. If you invent an arcane theory that gravity doesn't work tomorrow but works every other day, we are not bound to say that your particular theory has not been falsified. Likewise, if acupuncture claims to heal every last ailment known to humanity, that does not mean we must go out and test whether it is true for all its claims. The previous tests all show no evidence for acupuncture's efficacy beyond a placebo. In order to continue the conversation, there has to be evidence before such expensive and serious trials are actually conducted. To the extent that they are appropriately conducted, they have been shown to be falsified in the sense that they are no better than a placebo. This is exactly what would be expected if the hypothesis is that acupuncture is bunk and the test has failed for this procedure to such an extent it is not worth considering the further machinations (oh, while it may not be any better for joint pain, maybe it works for nausea, etc.). This means that acupuncture is falsified. There is nothing really more left to be done, though, clearly, acupuncturists will continue to complain until their particular approach is more and more marginalized. You can compare this to any other pseudoscientific claptrap you care to name: parapsychology, creation science, ufology, etc. This is just more of the same.
This is really not negotiable at all. There is really no sense in which acupuncturists are honest about the scientific evidence otherwise they would say that there is no scientific evidence that their procedures work. That's simply all there is to it. If we are willing to entertain their protestations to the contrary, we would have to entertain the protestation of every other pseudoscientific claptrap with as much seriousness.
Jytdog, by taking what you think, I believe, is the devil's advocate position, you are actually concern trolling. Whether you like it or not, you are playing into the hands of the acupuncture advocates. This is a well-worn road, but not a very pleasant one. Many have traveled it before you on this website. It leads to misery because the scientific evidence is clear and you actually have to start doing things like claiming that science is in a conspiracy against acupuncture or that scientific knowledge is "just an opinion" to weasel your way into an argument for accommodating fringe journals.
jps (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am not concern trolling; you have WP:BATTLEGROUND perception and behavior. I came here hoping to get you to put down the ax and talk more carefully and reasonably on the Talk page so that we could work productively and with reasonable efficiency to get the page settled. I am a realist as well as an optimist and while i hoped for a better outcome at this point, I reckoned that you would not have ears to hear now. In any case, thanks for your time - see you back on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, please don't take offense at my stridency. I hold no animus towards you whatsoever. I am merely trying to describe how your commentary comes across to me. "Concern trolling" is perhaps a flippant and argumentative charge, but I believe it is no more so belligerent than your insinuations that my "behavior" on talk is somehow problematic. To be clear, I don't begrudge you the right to discuss matters with me in the slightest, and I would hope you might be able to see that, even if you may not appreciate my approach, there is some underlying reasoning here that I'm working with. You may not agree with my reasoning and, if so, it's not the first time. To that end, I'm pointing out that you appear to me to be making arguments that I've come across before and they are generally of the sort that is approaching WP:NPOV from a false sense of balance.
- In the end, we may just be better off agreeing to disagree. I think our differences are mostly cosmetic, though I will admit that, for some reason, the culture at this website is obsessed with appearances a lot more than it should be given its supposed mission.
Tom Butler
Tom Butler is being discussed at WP:AE. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement block
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not sure why the second diff qualifies as a revert as I was trying in good faith to work towards a compromise. I will admit that my accusations against TDA were rather rough, but I did not know that there was civility enforcement active on that page. Could an uninvolved administrator check to see whether my edits after TDA's were actually a revert that constitute a two-day block? I will gladly refactor my statement on the talkpage. Cheers! jps (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocked on the condition that you refactor the comment (as you said you would above) and that you'll start a discussion on the talk page about that paragraph on the talk page and won't edit the paragraph (that is get someone else to make the edit when their is consensus). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that the single brackets breaks the unblock template? Can someone fix this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=598290484&oldid=598290080
User:Callanecc, I would like you to come here and have a discussion. Can you explain why the second diff was a WP:REVERT and why it's okay for you to do a civility block even though there was no WP:AE thread? jps (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think he did so under the provisions provided to administratos for pages under discretionary sanctions. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 04:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's clear. However, though discretionary sanctions include "despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior," as a reason for doing whatever, I don't think that I was ever warned as part of these discretionary sanctions to adhere to some higher standard of WP:CIV and fail to understand why my comment was considered uncivil while the previous comment received nary a mention. I am a bit confused. Can we point to someone else being blocked for civility breaches in discretionary sanctions? I thought the consensus was that civility blocks were bad ideas. At the very least, shouldn't Callanecc gone to WP:AE for the civility issue? This seems rather novel to me. As for the 1RR claim, he is within his right to block for that, but I fail to see how the second diff listed above is a revert per WP:REVERT. jps (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yep I'm here. Given there has been a conflict about that content which has been going on for at least a week it's past the point of trying to make compromises by editing, instead your experience should have told you to take it to the talk page. It's a revert because it by making it you reverted another editor's version of the page.
- Regarding the authority to block, WP:AC/DS gives that to administrators not to WP:AE and this isn't a "novel sanction". It's a same as an admin blocking for edit warring without a thread on WP:ANEW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Right, so, User:Callanecc could I ask you remove the bit about civility from the rationale and then we can deal with the revert action since civility blocks have been deprecated? To be clear, there are two VERY DIFFERENT cultures surrounding how to edit, a new school and an old school, and I think I'm of the older variety for which I should not be WP:PUNISHed. When there is an attempt to come to a conclusion without any talkpage discussion, I have always been under the impression that it is okay to continue editing (not reverting) until the discussion cannot be handled on the edit summary. That's why the talkpages were invented in the first place. The idea is that a normal workflow would have editors passing around different versions until WP:CON is acheived. I don't see my good faith efforts to try to get to a better version as being a "revert" in the classical or even neoclassical sense. I am not opposed to a 1-edit-per-day restriction, but you have to make that the restriction. NOT 1RR which is something that is normally reserved for pointing to previous diffs. Are you seriously going to argue that my version is a reversion simply because there is a "conflict"? That's nowhere to be found in WP:REVERT and the interpretation beggars belief. To be clear, I'd be more than happy to comply with an edit restriction that said, "only one edit per day". But you have to make that the edit restriction. The reinterpretation of what constitutes a "revert" as you have done seems to me to be liable to petty nitpicking rather than straightforward enforcement. jps (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's clear. However, though discretionary sanctions include "despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior," as a reason for doing whatever, I don't think that I was ever warned as part of these discretionary sanctions to adhere to some higher standard of WP:CIV and fail to understand why my comment was considered uncivil while the previous comment received nary a mention. I am a bit confused. Can we point to someone else being blocked for civility breaches in discretionary sanctions? I thought the consensus was that civility blocks were bad ideas. At the very least, shouldn't Callanecc gone to WP:AE for the civility issue? This seems rather novel to me. As for the 1RR claim, he is within his right to block for that, but I fail to see how the second diff listed above is a revert per WP:REVERT. jps (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whilst the block is primarily for breaching 1RR however the civility issue goes with it. Though I would be happy to unblock if you agree to refactor the comment (as you said you would above) and that you'll start a discussion on the talk page about that paragraph on the talk page and won't edit the paragraph (that is get someone else to make the edit when their is consensus).
- WP:3RR states that "an edit ... that undoes other editors' actions", the second edit undoes TDA's action which was to make a change to the page. Regarding your comment about continuing to use edit summaries, after at least a week it looks pretty clear that it isn't going to work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO AS YOU REQUEST, User:Callanecc. 100%. Please believe me that I was honestly confused. I'll even revert my edits if you want. jps (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe you two came to agreement and can sort it out. If not, please shape a query. (Revert button shouldn't be used any often, in my view; where possible, just make a new edit and fix things, both ones that were broken, and anything else you like.) —Gryllida (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Aside
To wax eloquently on revert aversion: the reason that this rule was invented for Wikipedia was because a revert cascade was essentially a stalled situation. If I revert you and then you revert me and we continue on ad infinitum, nothing gets done. The idea was to stop this sort of childish pattern by blocking the participants so that they couldn't continue. Of course, people could WP:GAME this, so the rules made it clear that a technical revert was just as much a problem as a real one.
Fast forward to today and it seems we've lost the plot. Yes, reverting is bad, but, and let me be clear here, editing is good. The goal should absolutely not be to get people to stop editing the page. The goal should be to get them to make reasonable edits that work towards compromise and consensus. They should be empowered to make edits that try to avoid reverting, not be told that they are reverting simply because they are editing.
Perhaps there are cases where this model of editing fails, but I haven't seen many. In such cases, a "one edit per day" restriction might work well. But I fail to see how this makes any sense whatsoever. The model of Wikipedia is now and has always been WP:SOFIXIT. The model comes from coding and the technology of subversion control upon which wikis were based. The whole idea is to encourage people to edit. The talkpages are there to facilitate editing, not to be a required pitstop at every point.
What's happened here is a re-imagination of what it means to have a wiki. If we wanted to have editorial control and stability (which is what I think many new folks on this website think), the model should be changed. We should dispense with wikis, adopt pending changes, or have content control boards. But that's not what we have. The technology is specifically designed to allow for editing and it's editing that should be encouraged. Yes, that includes areas where discretionary sanctions are applied.
jps (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you know...
...that if you are blocked you are not allowed to thank another editor?
jps (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there was at least one incident around the time Echo was introduced in which a blocked user went through a few page histories and thanked every user. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- They could just put a limit on the number of thanks that were possible in a certain time. Turning it off completely seems a bit overkilly. jps (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- True bit I think it was one of those things that they decided it was easier to turn it off then introduce it as a new 'action' (which I don't think it it at the moment). For example you can have an abuse filter for moving, editing, uploading and creating accounts but not for thanking. Plus there was also the belief that blocked users wouldn't really have a need to thank others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't thank you until after the whole thing was through. Made me sad. I think that administrators should feel what it's like to be blocked from time to time. It's an interesting experience. Sadly, I lost an entire post in the last goround I was making at WT:MEDRS. I shall never get it back because when you are blocked the wiki technology does not save your edit as it might when, say, faced with an edit conflict. jps (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- True bit I think it was one of those things that they decided it was easier to turn it off then introduce it as a new 'action' (which I don't think it it at the moment). For example you can have an abuse filter for moving, editing, uploading and creating accounts but not for thanking. Plus there was also the belief that blocked users wouldn't really have a need to thank others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- They could just put a limit on the number of thanks that were possible in a certain time. Turning it off completely seems a bit overkilly. jps (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture in Medicine
I stand corrected. Acupuncture in Medicine's peer review obviously is a fake. Although I didn't check them all, everybody from the reviewer list I did check seems to be an acupuncturist. Wouldn't have thought that. Kudos to your diligence! Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Legendary sources
What are the two sources you mention here? StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
[10] uses the word "legend" in reference to flood myths.
[11] also uses legend in reference to flood myths.
Neither uses apocrypha in reference to flood myths.
jps (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- No - I had checked the first one. It says "Gill believed that the flood legends of the Arabs, Chinese, Mexicans, Peruvians, and Brahmins confirmed the universality of the flood." It doesn't say anything about the Genesis flood narrative being a legend. The second source uses legend with respect to The Exodus, not the Flood. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on this article. Is there any chance you can comment on the talk-page of the article. A user is threatening to remove sources. I can't deal with this anymore, somebody else needs to weigh in. Goblin Face (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would, but everything I think should be said has already been said. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Note that WP:ARBPSCI may be helpful too. jps (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive240#User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Protected). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Motivation?
I don't mind sharing my own motivation. For me, I just don't think it's appropriate for BLPs to prominently state in the lede that a subject's views or beliefs are "incorrect," "wrong", "erroneous", etc. Will you find that explicitly enumerated somewhere in a policy like BLP, NPOV, LEAD, etc? Probably not, but it seems obvious to me that it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's norms and styles to handle a lede that way and there aren't any other BLPs that do that. Thus, I am motivated by principle. In so far as what I think of Ham personally, he's just another deluded creationist who can't see the evidence right in front of him. If I was having debates with someone on the subject of whether the Earth is 6K or 4.5 × 109 years old, I wouldn't hesitate to explain how "incorrect" those notions were. Do you understand my motivation now, or does it still confuse you? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still a bit confused because I cannot tell whether it is the word "incorrect", "wrong" or "erroneous" that makes you upset or just pointing out the dissonancy. If we simply wrote, "his belief about the young age of the Earth is too small by six orders of magnitude", does that upset you? jps (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just saw your reply here. I wouldn't say that I'm upset - there really isn't good reason to get upset about anything going on with the article, is there? My focus has primarily been on the insistence that we keep the word "incorrect" and I'd certainly be open to compromise on other wordings if it meant we were taking "incorrect" out to find a better way to express things. I saw that you posted a comment in the straw poll too, to the effect that if it isn't retained then we should include something about his ideas being at odds with the measurements. Does that mean you are neutral on the retention of "incorrect", or does it mean you indeed want "incorrect" retained and if it's not retained then your !vote is for including the measurements information? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think we've never come up with a totally satisfactory way to present beliefs that are at odds with objective reality. This issue comes up repeatedly (at AIDS denialism, climate-change-related articles, alt-med topics, etc). Obviously, we have a responsibility to the reader to make clear that these beliefs are incorrect, but do we do so by explicitly saying as much? I'm not a big fan of the "Ken Ham says X; the scientific community says Y" formulation, because it feeds into a false equivalence and suggests a degree of serious debate which doesn't actually exist. MastCell Talk 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MastCell, thanks for sharing your perspective. Actually, I'd be very interested in having the body of the article inform the reader of the truth and say something like "Ken Ham says X, but the age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.5 billion years..." and include the wikilink to the Age of the Earth article. This would also make sure we avoid some kind of false equivalence. My concern has been with editor's insistence that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV demand that we state prominently in the lede "Ken Ham's claims are incorrect, and they are dismissed by the scientific community..." BLPs on other creationists don't do this, and it seems like undue emphasis. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the body of the Ken Ham article doesn't even address the fact that science dismisses his claims, let alone the point that he is incorrect about it. Isn't the lede supposed to summarize the article body? Instead, someone added "incorrect" directly into the lede a few weeks back causing an edit war to erupt and nobody cares that the scientific community's dismissal of Ham's claims isn't even mentioned in the body. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll speak to a few things. I am happy you've explained that your problem is with the word incorrect and not with a simple explanation for how he is incorrect. That Ham is incorrect should be plain from the wording and, as MastCell rightly points out, parallelism of attribution gives a false sense of equivalence that our policies condemn. That's why I'm not okay with simply removing the word without adding in an explanation that indicates, even rather plainly, that he is incorrect. Any wording that remarked on how far off he is from the actual measurement would be fine with me, but notice that this kind of wording was reverted essentially immediately by a user from Kentucky who edits about Australia... hmm... I'll let the speculation on that sit on this page.
- In any case, it seems to me that I would be more comfortable if you didn't constantly refer to other BLPs when making your arguments. We all know much of Wikipedia needs improvement and your argument to the effect that no other BLPs do this makes me want to go and fix the other articles rather than adopt the attitude that they are the best. But one thing at a time.
- Finally, you point out that the body of the article may need more attention than the lede. I agree with you on the one hand, but also know that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers never make it past the lede. Some of us content ourselves to try to affect content at the point of interaction rather than ostensible "best practices" that Wikipedia pays lip service to but has no mechanism to enforce. If you have a problem with the body of the article, I'd say that the correct thing for you to do would be to go in and fix it (or propose fixes) yourself rather than complain about the rest of the peanut gallery not wanting to.
- Just my thoughts. Thanks for engaging, and I hope you can understand a bit more why there is resistance to your proposals. I understand that you don't like, for editorial reasons, the word "incorrect". I tend to share your disdain for less-than-brilliant prose. But in this case, I don't see you supporting an alternative wording quite yet that addresses the problems I outline. Once you do that, I'll be happy to support your proposed edits (as I was trying to do when the fly-by-night reverter came in and decided we couldn't simply state how much of a difference there was between Ham's belief and the actual measurement of the age of the Earth).
- Cheers, jps (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MastCell, thanks for sharing your perspective. Actually, I'd be very interested in having the body of the article inform the reader of the truth and say something like "Ken Ham says X, but the age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.5 billion years..." and include the wikilink to the Age of the Earth article. This would also make sure we avoid some kind of false equivalence. My concern has been with editor's insistence that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV demand that we state prominently in the lede "Ken Ham's claims are incorrect, and they are dismissed by the scientific community..." BLPs on other creationists don't do this, and it seems like undue emphasis. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the body of the Ken Ham article doesn't even address the fact that science dismisses his claims, let alone the point that he is incorrect about it. Isn't the lede supposed to summarize the article body? Instead, someone added "incorrect" directly into the lede a few weeks back causing an edit war to erupt and nobody cares that the scientific community's dismissal of Ham's claims isn't even mentioned in the body. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think we've never come up with a totally satisfactory way to present beliefs that are at odds with objective reality. This issue comes up repeatedly (at AIDS denialism, climate-change-related articles, alt-med topics, etc). Obviously, we have a responsibility to the reader to make clear that these beliefs are incorrect, but do we do so by explicitly saying as much? I'm not a big fan of the "Ken Ham says X; the scientific community says Y" formulation, because it feeds into a false equivalence and suggests a degree of serious debate which doesn't actually exist. MastCell Talk 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just saw your reply here. I wouldn't say that I'm upset - there really isn't good reason to get upset about anything going on with the article, is there? My focus has primarily been on the insistence that we keep the word "incorrect" and I'd certainly be open to compromise on other wordings if it meant we were taking "incorrect" out to find a better way to express things. I saw that you posted a comment in the straw poll too, to the effect that if it isn't retained then we should include something about his ideas being at odds with the measurements. Does that mean you are neutral on the retention of "incorrect", or does it mean you indeed want "incorrect" retained and if it's not retained then your !vote is for including the measurements information? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
One does gain the impression that as far as WP:FRINGE goes, fringe warnings are more required on stuff people might naively believe or consider to be mainstream (such as topics surrounding pseudomedicine) - rather than topics that you'd be harder pressed to find informed people who consider it mainstream, such as a flat earth. FWIW, I don't think there should be WP:FRINGE exceptions for beliefs that are easily demonstrably wrong and therefore stupid. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Horstmann Technique edit
Hi, I just now saw that you had edited the Horstmann Technique article I wrote. I am still trying to learn Wikipedia, so if this posting is in the wrong place, please help me out to correct it. What if I do not agree with your (in this case) cuts in the article? Those were sections that had newspaper quotations to them, and without them it looks more like opinion than otherwise. As you might guess I do not agree with cutting them out. But if I click on the "undo" of your changes, I guess it would be a seesaw action until one gave up, and that is probably not the way to go forward. Thanks for your help, Matopotato (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV and thanks for your reply,
- First I might have misunderstood the Wikipedia idea. I first thought it was to promote articles about as many and wide ranging topics as possible. Not all articles reach the highest level of the pedestal and thus become marked or tagged for lack of sources etc.
- Still, the possibly controversial nature of a topic would not be reason to leave it out since that would work more as censorship than "keeping Wikipedia clean". I am sure there are many controversial topics in Wikipedia, and many of them are marked as having content where opinion affect how people interpret the contents. Still those articles are there.
- When it comes to the "realm" of "ostensibly medical topics" I would expect a wide range of research, opinions, facts and thoughts. To say that this area is without any gray zones would be self delusional in my opinion. For example acupuncture is for some considered to be more or less a hoax although in China it is standard practice, and other countries offer such treatment officially as an alternative to standard sedation(?).
- Furthermore (and I do not suggest other articles for deletion as you might have guessed by now :-) ) I notice, without further relation, that topics such as the Rosen method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosen_Method) and Reiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) are valid contributions.
- Fully aware that not all agree, I still get a feeling that the normal way would be to expand the article and criticism or similar to make it more "balanced" if that is the problem the article suffer from. That would promote Wikipedia's open and democratic aspects rather than the opposite.
- About the edits: The clinical testing is described in the book, perhaps I should have made a reference to it? As someone said, the book is written by the person who started the therapy, so I was not sure if that would count as a source or not, despite such data being available there.
- The main part of the other edits are based on the two articles being partisan. As far as I know those reporters did interviews and visits and then wrote their articles. How they decide to write is outside our control. If there were articles of more critical nature, I assume Wikipedia would allow anyone to add them with references as well. Even in generic terms. To me that would be a more healthy approach as opposed to editing out sections in order to suggest that the article is to be deleted. I am sure I could dig up several articles on Wikipedia where sources could be thought of as being "partisan" by readers who do not fully agree with the contents.
- I expect to find fewer of these regarding Physics and Mathematics and similar topics, but rest assured they are areas full of debate and different opinions as well.
- Probably wider spectrum of opinion would be found in articles about religion, politics and any as you mention medicine.
- Please note that the article does not portray the technique to be a form of Medicine, nor Alternative Medicine.
- The omission "throughout the world" is fine to leave out. It was my way of describing the geographical spread in generic terms, but the list of countries is perhaps more appropriate.
- Finally : "During her recovery from the injuries she embarked on natural health studies"
- I am not sure why this is wrong to mention. Again the source would be the book, so if it is quotable I can add a reference to it.
- I think that the article serves its purpose, to provide information about what the technique is about. It is up to each reader to relate to the article. It is of public interest as much as many other articles.
- After the editing, the article is proposed for deletion by Kolbasz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Horstmann_Technique Many of those reasons given are to me opinions rather than anything else. Anyway, I thought I would bring up the edits first, before commenting on the suggestion for deletion. Thanks for taking your time reading this, Matopotato (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Minor formatting edits Matopotato (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Signature in the Cell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Signature in the Cell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature in the Cell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MastCell Talk 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks re Ken Ham
Hi - thanks for implementing my suggested rewrite of the lead sentence of Ken Ham, and highlighting it to a wider audience. --94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly 78.86)
AR Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—