| Revision as of 14:26, 20 November 2006 editProsfilaes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,478 edits →Citations for Arguments← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:47, 20 November 2006 edit undoAsmodeus (talk | contribs)836 edits Response to prosfilaesNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :: The second sentence of ] specifically includes arguments. I removed uncited arguments, like I would have from anyone; the long list of references at the bottom of the page gives me hope that cites can be found for the existing items on the page, but you've clearly stated that you had no cites for your arguments.--] 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | :: The second sentence of ] specifically includes arguments. I removed uncited arguments, like I would have from anyone; the long list of references at the bottom of the page gives me hope that cites can be found for the existing items on the page, but you've clearly stated that you had no cites for your arguments.--] 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::You seem to mean: " includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'" | |||
| :::However, we also have: | |||
| :::"Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." | |||
| :::The meaning of any particular guideline can be determined only with respect to original intent. In Wales' statement, I discern no reference to ''symmetrically'' enumerating possible rationales for a given pair of ''balanced'' positions regarding a ''non-scientific, non-historical'' phenomenon which clearly exists in the real world. Any citations of such arguments would merely devolve to the thoughts of somebody who wrote an article or book about ''his own'' arguments, and would lend no weight to the argument itself. | |||
| :::In choosing to revert precisely those arguments that I originally added, you are violating ]. That is, you are exporting the argument you began with me about academia (at RfAr:Pseudoscience) to this article, obviously for purposes of retaliation. As I see it, you have two choices. (1) Let the arguments stand as they were before you began to revert them. (2) Eliminate all of the arguments (a move for which, again, ] does not provide you with grounds). | |||
| :::Do you understand? ] 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:47, 20 November 2006
I nearly nominated this for deletion as original research. Since it's flagged for cleanup please add citations and represent both points of view. If nothing improves this looks like a deletion candidate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Durova (talk • contribs) .
- I removed the NPOV tag. Please list the points here of NPOV if you want to put the tag in. Thanks J. D. Redding (PS., how was this original research?)
Although I think academic elitism is a real phenomenon, I agree that this article is original research. It's also biased and some of the points are basically crazy, such as equating the phenomenon of disregarding research by non-lettered people with having advanced classes for students who are not challenged by mainstream classes. Most schools have special education classes for the less intelligent - is that simpleton elitism then? No of course not. Having classes at different levels has nothing to do with academic elitism, it has to do with providing an education that is relevant and useful to each child. Xj 03:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note ... it's a common knowledge article ... not to say that it needs a clean up ... and, this is interesting "AcademicElitism 17:41, 6 February 2001 JimboWales". Sincerely, J. D. Redding
Its claims are certainly not common knowledge, but are unsubstantiated assertions coming from a specific, radical point of view. Xj 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Academic elitism is an important and well-known problem, and it exists right here in Misplaced Pages (where "reputable academic journals" are sometimes preferred for verification over mass media sources, particularly by "academic elites" themselves). It isn't confined to the supposition that someone with a degree is automatically more knowledgable than one without; it underlies the widespread assumption that those with degrees are better-qualified for various kinds of employment, and should thus be preferred for higher-paying jobs. Consequently, as the cost of a university education continues to skyrocket, those who can't afford one are further penalized by vastly lower average salaries. Academic elitism thus hits them right where it counts, in the quality of their lives. Due to its heavy socio-economic impact, this problem is most certainly common knowledge among the general populace. Although the article could use a bit of shaping up, it does present both sides of the issue (in the form of "arguments for" and "arguments against"), and offers a decent list of references. Asmodeus 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as very balanced; for one thing, it never discusses the positive sides of not forcing students who can read and do basic math to sit through the same basic material that they already know.--Prosfilaes 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Response: It's not balanced now, because you have attempted to skew the argumentation by removing plausible, perfectly legitimate "arguments against" on the absurd grounds that they require citation, meanwhile leaving pejorative terms like "crank" and "idiot" in place under "arguments for". They don't require citation, unless you can show the policy or guideline which says specifically that they do. However, if you were to succeed in doing that, then all of the arguments would have to be eliminated, because arguments require balance. In any event, you claim to have academic credentials, and by tampering with arguments regarding the nature and validity of your own credentials, you are engaged in a clear violation of WP:COI. Please desist. Asmodeus 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, You've just accused me of making three "reverts". But on your own part, I count...three reverts! When you go to report me, be sure to report yourself. Better yet, stop violating WP:COI, and go edit something you're less emotionally involved with (and invested in). Thanks, Asmodeus 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't accused you of making three reverts, I've accused you of making four. See WP:3RR. Given that we had a somewhat heated argument on the subject, I would suspect you're at least as emotionally involved. And if you are who you have loudly refused to confirm or deny that you are, you have more invested in this article than I do.--Prosfilaes 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's an absurd reading of WP:COI, which says "an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it", and would exclude one side almost completely.--Prosfilaes 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Read the guideline. "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Asmodeus 13:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
removed a line:
- "One is often Intelligent before Academic, but sometimes the order is reversed. "
--Rj 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Citations for Arguments
An argument without a citation is original research. When articles start accumulating uncited arguments, they start accumulating rebuttals, and the whole thing starts turning into a debate. I have responded to many of the statements that Asmodeus wants to add to the article, in an argument we had elsewhere on Misplaced Pages; importing that debate here would bring in a lot of unpublished and non-notable arguments that would encourage yet more people to add more arguments. I've seen it elsewhere, and hope to stop it right here.--Prosfilaes 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, an argument presented as an argument is an argument, plain and simple, and requires only logical plausibility. (The fact is, you're unable to offer coherent rebuttals to any of these arguments, as has previously been established.) This article was stable for some time before you and one or two others, one of them a bogus account, began reverting precisely those arguments added by me. That's harassment. If those particular arguments need to be eliminated, then so do all of them (for and against), because they are all uncited. Do you understand? Asmodeus 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The second sentence of WP:OR specifically includes arguments. I removed uncited arguments, like I would have from anyone; the long list of references at the bottom of the page gives me hope that cites can be found for the existing items on the page, but you've clearly stated that you had no cites for your arguments.--Prosfilaes 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to mean: " includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"
- However, we also have:
- "Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history."
- The meaning of any particular guideline can be determined only with respect to original intent. In Wales' statement, I discern no reference to symmetrically enumerating possible rationales for a given pair of balanced positions regarding a non-scientific, non-historical phenomenon which clearly exists in the real world. Any citations of such arguments would merely devolve to the thoughts of somebody who wrote an article or book about his own arguments, and would lend no weight to the argument itself.
- In choosing to revert precisely those arguments that I originally added, you are violating WP:HARASS. That is, you are exporting the argument you began with me about academia (at RfAr:Pseudoscience) to this article, obviously for purposes of retaliation. As I see it, you have two choices. (1) Let the arguments stand as they were before you began to revert them. (2) Eliminate all of the arguments (a move for which, again, WP:OR does not provide you with grounds).
- Do you understand? Asmodeus 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)