Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raymond arritt (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 28 February 2008 (let others make your points for you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Misplaced Pages, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From

During this period between the world wars, sightings were reported and searches launched for, among others, the snoligostus, the ogopogo, the Australian bunyip, the whirling wimpus, the rubberado, the rackabore, and the cross-feathered snee. These sound like some interesting creatures that deserve articles on WP! The only one I know of is the ogopogo, although I have never seen it, even though I have been to Lake Okanagan many times. ...--Filll (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a barnstar, but different

WLU (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request for your input

Aargh, so sorry Filll, but I am completely swamped right now for at least the next month, probably more.--Margareta (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No rush.--Filll (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I am pretty sure a couple of your unreferenced falsifiability tests can be found in The Blind Watchmaker.--Margareta (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh interesting. Well that sounds good. --Filll (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/pro

Came across this copy of the article while looking for articles to link to Caroline Crocker. You're listed as its creator. Do you have any further use for it? If not, you should probably speedy it, as it's attracting petty vandalism]. Hrafn_Stalk 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, gotta rush and do other things myself, but note that the texax baptist source also mentions that Dembski appearing in the film, albeit not as a "persecutee". Don't remember that being mentioned previously.... dave souza, talk 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scent of a Woman

The first link to the script is fine. The second one is spam, however, which I reverted. Ward3001 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith in the edit. I just wanted to avoid the spam. I think it's OK to indicate without a link that the script comes from Drew's Script-O-Rama, but the second link you added doesn't go directly to the script, and it does go to a page loaded with adverts. I think this way would be OK: Scent Of A Woman Script - Dialogue Transcript from Drew's Script-O-Rama. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SPA new section

I moved some of our comments back up to the other section. See this edit. I hope this works (feel free to revert) for you to try and avoid contamination of your new section. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Contamination is an interesting word choice. •Jim62sch• 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In what sense? Oh, I get it I'm being unkind to someone. I thought the mandate you are after is to judge first? David D. (Talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairchoice

Did you notice the latest drama? Archtransit desysopped Turns out one of his socks was fairchoice. David D. (Talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange. So he blocked and unblocked his own socks and got into fights with them and lectured them and so on? Weird.--Filll (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just bizarre. I suppose for some the whole thing is more a performance than an encyclopedia. At least they closed the door on the guy. David D. (Talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel sort of stupid since I was in an editing dispute with Fairchoice. Archtransit stepped in to block him for me, but Fairchoice was very uspet about it. I went to Archtransit to plead with him to give Fairchoice another chance, since he seemed willing to try to reform and I thought Archtransit had been a bit excessive in blocking him so fast and for so long. Now it turns out they are the same person?? I feel weird about it.--Filll (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who could have known? Certainly you have to wonder about the sanity of some people we are editing side by side with here, let alone their agenda. David D. (Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

The real worry for me is the "illustrate a point of view" argument. In articles like the one on the holocaust, I do not want editors to be able to quote Nazis to illustrate the point of view that the holocaust did not happen. That's fine in the article about holocaust denial, but not in mainstream articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem arises I think when it is a clearly a WP:FRINGE POV, maybe held by 0.1% or less of relevant organizations or individuals, and we dedicate 30% or 60% of the article and the sources to this 0.1% position, when the article is not about the 0.1% position, but the mainstream topic.

So in the case of homeopathy, I do not mind if 70% of the sources are homeopathic sources and 30% are mainstream sources although homeopathy might be a 1% or less position. What is troubling is in articles like Charles Darwin to find a big section promoting homeopathy, when Darwin himself wrote extensively that homeopathy is nonsense, and the best scholars are not even sure how much contact with homeopathy Darwin had, in spite of our narrow extreme homeopathy sources claiming otherwise. --Filll (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's more a NPOV issue. This change would impact when a point of view is clearly notable (such as holocaust denial, creationism etc), but unsupported by reliable sources. If we allow entirely unreliable sources to be used to illustrate these notable points of view in mainstream articles, it blows a hole through the whole of the verifiability policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well NPOV is tied up in this, I am afraid. I like the ability to use fruitcake sources to illustrate fruitcake positions, in some circumstances, as long as things do not get out of hand.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok maybe if we stated something like: "On a general topic, mainstream views and marginal views should be presented in proportion to their prominence, in both amount of text and number of sources, but in a FRINGE topic, about the marginal view itself, there can be more sources and more text devoted to the FRINGE position, but only to a reasonable extent"(whatever that is determined to be). I think having firm guidelines as to what exactly should be the proportions, with examples, would be very helpful. Clearly in articles like creationist articles, and alternative medicine, and holocaust articles, and "race" articles, and so on, we need clearer guidelines. The problem is the current FRINGE advocates are running wild and we cannot reign them in without clearer guidelines, particularly when we say WP:AGF but that does not work too well in many of these circumstances.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already covered by the NPOV policy "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but can we create rules similar to NPOV to apply to sources? For example, suppose we are working on an article about African Americans. Assorted Black Supremacist groups like the Nation of Islam, or the Nation of Israel or the Black Panthers are clearly fringe groups. In an article about the Nation of Islam, we could use a few Nation of Islam sources about themselves. But suppose we determine that the Nation of Islam constitutes a position that is held by abot 10% of all African Americans. And we have 100 mainstream sources about African Americans; could we not have a few (not necessarily as many as 10, but a few ) sources from the Nation of Islam in the African American article? Or is that giving undue weight to the Nation of Islam's views about African Americans?--Filll (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that prominence applies to how common a view is, but it doesn't, it applies to the prominence of views in reliable sources. In the NPOV policy it says "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." It is how prominent a view is in reliable sources that determines the weight we give it in articles, not how prominent this view is in the population. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a reasonable position, however by that measure we would have a lot of problems finding sources for some FRINGE topics. For example, how many pro-homeopathy reliable sources are there? Very few I would claim. By that measure, we would have a very hard time describing some topics. There are reliable sources about creationist beliefs, but there is nothing like using the creationist source itself because a mainstream description about creationism is often somewhat filtered. I like being able to dip right into the really extreme views and highlight them, which I think is valuable for the readers and makes the articles far more interesting than some bland description.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how you define the subject, it is a sliding scale. You don't mention homeopathy at all in the article on medicine, outline it in alternative medicine, and discuss it in detail in homeopathy. Fringe, unreliable sources are OK in an article on the views of particular homeopaths, to show what these views are, but can't under the current NPOV and V policies be used to add these views to the article on medicine. The policies interlink to support each other. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That I would agree with. For example, in the case of an article on Charles Darwin, it is definitely not notable to discuss how wonderful homeopathy is, and how it cured him (when it is not clear how much homeopathic treatment he had, and Darwin himself wrote bitterly about how stupid homeopathy is) based on a homeopathy promoting source. Nevertheless, that is what we are facing, and some admins are even supporting this.--Filll (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this requirement/guideline from WP:EL: That is, that we should avoid any source such as:

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

Frankly, that leaves out almost all sources for WP:FRINGE material.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, too. Almost pointed it out...then I just shook my head & tried to make reasonable headway over there. I fully agree with your point that there should be a "good measure of sources on all sides". — Scientizzle 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and minority topics

I have added a discussion here. Since you know a lot about it I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3. JASpencer (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or

The alternative is, just more assertion but still just as civil as ever until such time a content-pusher snaps....and get's blocked. Then the assertion can become the fact. Tis the way of Civility.... Shot info (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely dangerous. And frankly I think doomed to failure. At least at the moment, I think the only option is for Misplaced Pages to fail spectacularly and be a huge embarassment so that maybe some policies are changed a bit.--Filll (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That may well happen; in most large, bureaucratic organizations (and let's face it, Misplaced Pages is one) it takes a train wreck to spur meaningful change. In the meantime we're only hurting ourselves by not playing the civility game. Handing a weapon to your opponent doesn't make sense. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I find not playing the game and letting the other more civil side enjoy their game on their own to be the better policy. Then when the supervisiors see their television ratings slipping - because the audience is not interested - then some policy changes will be effected. Until content becomes the reason for an Encyclopedia, there is no reason to edit. WikiMyspace indeed :-) Shot info (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, you are too forthright and free of guile. You need to experience the sheer joy that comes from beating a dysfunctional system using its own rules. Go read Catch 22 and year's worth of Dilbert strips. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

O I know that joy :-/ Shot info (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and H

You've made the same exact comments over and over again and effectively had the discussion diverted and moved from the NPOV page. I will pursue admin assistance if you persists. Anthon01 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? How dare you make such threats! I tried to explain NPOV to you. You rejected my explanations over and over and over. So I acquiesced and surrendered and invited you to go ahead and rewrite the policy (which is what that talk page is for), or make whatever changes to the article that suited your fancy (which I believe is what you were after). I told you repeatedly, over and over and over that you had won and I did not want to fight. And for surrendering and telling you that you have won, you have decided that I have violated the rules of Misplaced Pages? In what way? How dare you make such insinuations and such threats! What on earth?--Filll (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The repetition ends up diverting the conversation and is disruptive. If you go back to the NPOV and try to divert the discussion again I will seek admin assistance. Now I've said it twice. I will not say it again. I will also address you conflict of interest issue later. I will also address an apparent conflict of interest issue later. Anthon01 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do repeat things in different ways when people are not able or are unwilling to absorb the information, for a variety of reasons. And now you are in a bad faith way accusing me of violating WP:COI? How? After accusing me repeatedly of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? I think I have had enough.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edit. That NPOV page displays all the text. I hid parts that were off-topic. Anthon01 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, please WP:AGF. You did it incorrectly.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What text did I lose. Please provide a diff or quote. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as it is now and it is fine. Your last "hide" did not work properly and you lost all the text you supposedly were hiding. When you make a drastic change, test all your "hide" buttons to make sure they are operating. And please WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not leave it as is. I intend to hide the off topic parts. I've asked for help in identifying where the problem is. You have refused, so I will do it myself. Anthon01 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I suggested methods you could try to fix the problem. Please proceed with those. I am not an expert in this kind of formatting. If you need help, please seek out technical assistance from a more experienced editor.--Filll (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thakns for your help. Anthon01 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Any time. Glad to be of service.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Levine's signiture is the problem. I will be looking for a way around it. Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV. I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. Anthon01 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, past experience has demonstrated that this is a false statement. I ask you to please WP:AGF and not make such uncivil comments again or I will ask an admin to block you for violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am outraged that you would behave in such a manner.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where I have been uncivil? Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thakns for your help. is sarcastic and uncivil

• • Thank was a sincere thanks, since you did mention using the sandbox.

• There are numerous examples of refusing to WP:AGF above and in the reversions and edit summaries

• • Diffs please.

• Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV is sarcastic and ludicrous since you went to a page that is intended for rewriting NPOV and now claim you do not want to, after arguing about it for months on end and thousands of edits. Frankly, this is not believable, with all due respect and I view your wording as a violation of WP:CIVIL.

• • It certainly wasn't my intention. You've asked repeatedly to change NPOV. You said I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit. I went to page where NPOV is often discussed. If you look carefully through the sections, you will see many examples of discussions on the correct interpretation of NPOV. Most of those are not intended to change NPOV but to clarify disagreements on interpretations.

• I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. I find this highly uncivil since you invited me to participate and now are complaining that I am involved. You have wasted my time and engaged in tendentious argumentation and violation of WP:TE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by this comportment, which I take umbrage at and I take as a severe personal affront.

• • I said it on that page as a general comment. I said I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group. in response to MastCell's post. Please note he didn't take it personally. I said that there because I had already gotten your interpretation and was looking for more input. I specifically started that section with ... What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise. My mistake for not being clear. I wanted you to comment on what other editors might comment and not to repeat what you had already siad to me on the homeopathy talk page. I meant it to be a spirited discussion where greater clarity could be achieved on NPOV in regards to minority articles.

• For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. I find this a highly uncivil comment and a violation of WP:AGF. When you ask the same question again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again over and over and over and over and over and over and argue and argue and argue and argue about the answer you get if it is not the one you want, and then complain that someone has answered you repeatedly in the same way, this is a bit disingenuous and is a severe violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:TE and is highly disruptive. I am highly offended by this.

• • I'm sorry, but I find you repeating it 10 times beyond belief. Please consider how you might react if I kept repeating the same thing to you over and over again. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. I find this a highly snide, sarcastic, derogatory, insulting, vulgar, snippy, disrespectful, brusque and offensive. This tone is unwelcome in my presence and I find your comportment and egregious flippancy to be beyond the pale. Please reign yourself in and do NOT engage in such further obnoxious combative discourse.--Filll (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry. I mean that sincerely. And I didn't mean it as an insult or as disrespect. I meant by that comment that, you can say something to me once maybe twice, but there is no need to repeat past that. If I don't get it the first time, I'll get it the second time. If it appears I didn't hear, it likely means I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is highly unacceptable. You are NOT allowed to edit someone else's comments and intersperse your comments in between. This is a gross violation of decency and respect. It is grounds for immediate administrative sanction. I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront. Absolutely sickening...--Filll (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, Filll has a point. The way you've responded makes it hard to distinguish who's saying what. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apolgies, I will rewrite it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe could you back off a little? You've made your point; others are now seeing the concerns and taking it up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)