Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 14 January 2011 (Undid revision 407760514 by QuackGuru (talk) see wp:HUSH. next warning you leave on my user page gets administrator attention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Burden

You seem to have cleaned up here, so maybe these updates are better put elsewhere. But anyway, more in the annals of WP:BURDEN. Ocaasi (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ah, no. I just have the bot archive everything after a while, and I haven't been doing much on project in the last bit (real life intervenes...). I do need to write that essay, though; maybe I'll do that this evening. Unfortnately, Burden of proof and Burden of evidence already exists as redirects - I'll need to look into co-opting one of them for my purposes. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they really covered that (burden, burden of proof, burden of evidence, proveit, bop, onus... they got onus!). How about WP:WHOSEBURDEN, WP:WHOSERESPONSIBILITY, and WP:WHOSE? Ocaasi (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research is a serious issue

The response grow up is not an appropriate response to WP:OR problems you started. You agreed to me more civil in the future. Do you have a reliable source for your rewrite. You claimed on the talk page that editors should use a reliable source but you replaced a journal without a source. Can you give a reason for deleting a reliable source and replacing it without any sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The response you got was because you templated me, which was childish. Don't do that. To your substantive point, I removed your citation because (as I said in the edit summary, and in several places on the talk page), you are misusing the source to support a claim the source does not explicitly make (not to mention using a minor source to support a valid claim that is better represented by a strong source like the NSF). What I wrote is perfectly in line with the NSF's approach to pseudoscience; do you take issue with that? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is unsourced. We have a journal available that is reliable. You did not provide WP:V or a better source than the journal. I could not find a journal that mentioned NSF. If you continue to add OR you could be warned again. The text you disagree with is supported by source. You are making excuses to delete a relaible source. You did not show on the talk page how to more accurately summarise the source. Please stop deleting sourced text for no good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

QG, templating regular users is uncivil. Ludwigs is about as regular as it gets, so you have no grounds to put up boilerplate instead of just explaining your argument. If you hypothetically bring the incident to another venue, all you need is diffs, not templates; this isn't WP:AIV, so please don't act like it. Though you're obviously in disagreement with recent changes at Pseudoscience, Chiropractic, and Vertebral Artery Dissection, I think this approach will add to the appearance of a tendentious editing style (though in pursuit of well-intentioned ends). I'm not sure how to say this without it sounding threatening, but I think if you keep doing things like this, it is more likely to lead to sanctions of some kind than the resolutions you want. That's not 'a warning' from me, just my read on the situation.

As for sources, although WP:V buts the burden on those who want to include information if challenged, just because you have a source doesn't mean your source fits the context or is appropriate for the statements being made. A poorly sourced version is not inherently better than an unsourced version. Although we live and die by verifiability, we are not held in the tyranny of the sources we have; rather, we have access to the full range of text that is supportable by reliable sources. Are you asking for a source to verify the NSF claim? It might not be in PubMed, since the assertions being made here are not clearly subject to WP:MEDRS. Ocaasi (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is the NSF's annual report, which user:BullRangifer made such a stink about in a different context a few months back. I'll need to look it up, but they have an entire section dedicated to pseudoscience and its relation to public education, and use pretty much the definition of pseudoscience that I presented.

The Hurt article suffers on several fronts: (1) it's specifically geared towards medical issues, which damages its generalizability, (2) it's relatively recent, and so can't pretend to full acceptance even by the medical community, and (3) it's the production of a single author, whereas the NSF report is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can most assuredly be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion.

Ludwig- an excellent point on the difference between the production of a single author and a collaborative and heavily vetted publication. I hope you dont mind that I have used (stolen) this same reasoning to support my view on a different issue in a discussion at WP:FTN. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And Ocaasi - let him hang himself. He knows I'm simply waiting until he gets in my face sufficiently that I can justify opening an RFC/U or a new community ban discussion on him. Or if he doesn't know that, he should. After the last time he ought to have the common sense to be on his best behavior with me. Some people never learn. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. Just saying, if your edit was based off the NFS source, then why the hell don't you simply cite the NFS right next to your text. (I haven't checked the sources in detail, so I won't comment on them) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. You wrote "I'll need to look it up". If you need to look it up how then is the text you added sourced to NSF. I think a reliable journal is more reliable than the NSF website. Did you delete the journal because you have a disagreement with the sourced text. Do you agree in the future that you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text like this again. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Enric: because I often work from memory (my memory is excellent), I didn't think the revision would be contentious (and in fact, no one has objected to it in the couple of whatevers since I made it), and I confess to being lazy as hell. here's the link to the PDF versions of the 2010 report - chapter 7 is the one you want. you can also work through the HTML version , though navigating that is a bit of a chore. I haven't read through the 2010 version yet, I don't think (I believe 2009 was the most current the last time I looked at this), but it should be similar since it's revised from year to year rather rewritten each time..

@ QG: as I said, my memory is excellent; far superior to my industriousness. remember, the hallmark here is verifiability, not verification.

@ Puhlaa - have at it, with my blessing. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. Your memory is not verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ QG again: (sorry, missed a point) We could have a debate about whether a peer reviewed journal is more reliable than an NSF publication, but I think you'd lose on two points. first (as I said) your peer reviewed journal is specific to medical issues, whereas the article in question is pseudoscience more generally put. that reduces its reliability with respect to the article in question. second, the article you are advocating is much closer to primary research than the NSF report, which is clearly a secondary source. Misplaced Pages generally prefers secondary sources to primary research. clear enough?

and my memory doesn't need to be verifiable; the information that I put in the encyclopedia does. go read the links I provided. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So, that's it? a half a day of bluster, and then you go *poof* when I point out the flaws in your argument? QG, if you're not going to have the grace to admit you were wrong, at least have the wisdom to think things through before you go off half-cocked. --Ludwigs2 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)