Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:01, 28 April 2007

Put a warning on his talk page then let me know as soon as he violates it. Rlevse 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is to put a "test4" or "blatantvandal" warning on his talk page. If you keep reverting him, you'll be in an edit war and you both might end up blocked. If you give one of these warnings and he violates it, let me or WP:AIV know and only he will get blocked. If you go AIV, mention the prior block.Rlevse 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edits to the creation-evolution controversy page because the edits you changed seemed to be the result of a consensus. Please see the associated discussion. While I do think that having contributors compiling information from the groups who participate in the controversy is bordering on original research by turning[REDACTED] into a secondary source, I do not think the particular metion of ICR pointing to research (not pointing to their own research, but just the vauge term "research"), and the immediate rebuttal of the ICR interpretation by mainstream scientists is undue weight. In fact, it appears to be quite damning to the ICR to have so many scientists dispute their interpretations. ImprobabilityDrive 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Some good points. I think you should put them on the creation-evolution controversy talk page, especially the points about them commissioning research. I was assuming that they were merely pointing to research. My bad if they actually commissioned it. (Actually, who ever wrote it should have chosen his or her words more carefully when s/he wrote "Creationists point to research indicating that" if what they should have written was "Creationists point to their own research indicating that..." or "Creationists point to research they commissioned" indicating that". In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading. But go ahead and put your points about them commissioning the research on the talk page, and revert me. I'll bow out of the undue weight disucssion for tonight. ImprobabilityDrive 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I will try to articulate my view here before I refine it for the creation-evolution talk page. But imagine, rather than the Creation-evolution controversy, an article on something you might be less emotionally attached to. I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR. Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article. It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence. It is an article about the controversy.

In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources. But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other. In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals. I believe that the[REDACTED] policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy). We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.

An article on abstinence, on the other hand, is different. In this case, if the forbearance fundementalists "facts" are disputed by the more-highly-educated experts in sex education, undue weight arguments would prevent you from treating forbearance fundementalists assertions as facts.

But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it.

Does this make sense? Again, please read On using primary sources

The controversy article is a socio-political article. In such an article, there is a controversy. It should be treated objectively. Even if the mainstream concensus among educated professionals is that the forbearance fundementalists are dead wrong on almost every one of their contentions, the contentions of the forbearance fundementalists need to be described along side the contentions of the education professionals, without taking sides. When primary sources are cited, what makes them primary is they are particpants in the controversy. Consequently, the conflict of interest vis-a-vis the controversy should be disclosed in the prose. This goes for forbearance fundementalists and education professional assertions alike.

I think this is what the goal of[REDACTED] founders would be on an artical about a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV. Again, please read On using primary sources ImprobabilityDrive 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not. ImprobabilityDrive 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV allegations

Hrafn42,

Regarding this deleting and your comments that "Original was GROSSLY POV & in violation of WP:Undue Weight, in that it ONLY voiced the pro-pseudoscience side. Have replaced it with the Intro to the main article", please be patient. Also, I do plan to go to the other article and fix some errors there. I am not sure if you have read the sources, but I would encourage you to do so before you decide that the presentation is unbalance. Also, you should not just delete my contributions and replace them with another article's contents which may or may not be POV in the other direction. This section needs work, but for you to simply replace it so soon with content from another page seems a bit much. Please work with me to find a NPOV presentation. I am reading the sources, and I hope you do too. By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg. He is a reliable source, too. If others disagree with assertion, simply include it. I tried to merge your additions with mine. AGF ImprobabilityDrive 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I got your message. I also responded to the talk page of the article in question. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Patience please

Hrafn42, I responded to your concerns 05:20, 28 April 2007, but afterwards, you already removed the disputed sentences 05:24, 28 April 2007. Four minutes is hardly enough time to address your concerns. Please be patient and work with me. Again, this is a work in progress, and you really should not be removing cited sentences so quickly, IMHO. ImprobabilityDrive 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet? ImprobabilityDrive 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your behavior at Creation-evolution controversy has become disruptive and is totally unacceptable. Per discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile_editor_at_Creation-evolution_controversy I am warning you that it needs to cease immediately. Should you fail to head this warning may be blocked from editing without further warning. I suggest you find a less controversial topic to contribute to for a while to let things cool down and focus on contributing in a more productive and less confrontational manner. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the preceding warning. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm becoming less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)