User talk:JzG/Archive 125

Intelligent Design and all that

Hi. Have already written too much on RSN, but I think that you asked for examples to confirm the reasoning I claimed is being used on the article (i.e. that certain sources might make ID, the concept not the movement but the concept it promotes, sound like it has a distinguished pedigree). I suggest searching for the search term "pedigree" on the archives of that article. (Though it is probably not the only word used to explain the argument, and much of this is from periods before I arrived.)

Let me already predict what your first reaction might be: some sympathy for the concern that some editors who want this easily sourceable information to be included might have intentions which are "bad" in the sense of being "anti" what I would think is best for science and indeed humanity. It means basing edits on judgments about fellow editors. But then we should think about it again, and indeed I think this example is a classic reminder of the reasoning behind the 3 key core content policies, which were heavily debated and carefully written as I am sure you know. Guessed-at intentions of other editors should not matter. The situation is similar to for example someone arguing that Nazism was influenced by Nietzsche, which is something sometimes very badly understood and overblown. There are all types of standard approaches about how we judge which things we can say about the link between Nietzsche and Nazism, but the intentions of our editors is not one of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic of that article is Intelligent Design, the brand created by the Discovery Institute in response to McLean v Arkansas, which killed its previous brand, Creation Science. There is another related concept, creationism, which has a longer pedigree, and in discussion of which the term "intelligent designer" was occasionally used, but our article is about the Discovery Institute brand. The concept you are discussing is covered at teleological argument, which is linked from the ID article. To conflate the two adds only confusion, they are separate concepts, the one only coincidentally related to the other. I don't blame you for the confusion, the religious right has a positive genius for Orwellian use of language. They undoubtedly chose the term very carefully with the exact intent to evoke vague memories of the teleological argument among a judiciary who will almost all have gone through a Sunday school education; the term seems to me very clearly intended to resonate with distant but nonspecific memories of early education, with the hope that this would somehow appear to be a "lost" part of educational tradition and thus clear the great hurdle of the anti-establishment clause. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we have no source which describes it as a "brand". It is either a name for a political/religious movement, or it is the teleological argument they use, or it is teleological arguments generally. The subjects are connected, even though the movement wants to de-emphasize that (and WP goes along with this). I see you can give no source which says otherwise, while many explicitly say what I just said. I accept that the movement is what the article about, and that it should have an article separate from teleological arguments generally (actually I count at least 3 or 4). I agree that confusion has been deliberately created by that movement, and that this is part of what makes it hard for WP. (You think I've fallen for it. I think you have!) That is also the position of the editors who work on it. Anyway, I think it needs no further discussion from my side. Most relevant to the general concern which was raised is that the editors themselves of that article quite blatantly say that they are vetoing discussion of certain sourceable information links based upon bad editor intentions, (or the potential for editors with bad intentions). That is how they see it themselves, so even if they are wrong, it is a relevant example. WP:PARITY does not tell us to do this, and it is contrary to our core content policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, if you google cdesign proponentsists you will learn everything you need to know about the term which is the subject of that article. You want the article to be about something else, but it isn't. It is about the term coined by the Discovery Institute in order to try to get round the First Amendment, and it is a direct replacement for their earlier term, "creation science", as the sources make absolutely clear. The article where your proposed edits belong, if anywhere, appears to be teleological argument, but it does not belong in the ID article because the ID article is specifically about the term coined by DI and not about the looser term "intelligent designer". I think we're done here. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you and me using google are not RS, obviously (though the ID talk page shows a lot of this approach). Instead I followed WP policy and looked for real sources in order to check the verifiable facts of the matter and avoid trying to be a journalist. Included in this I asked editors to name their sources and looked at those, both strong and weak. Anyway, what I think has been admitted many times over many years by editors on that page is that the term was not really coined by the DI. The DI claim they got it from NASA and that it was an engineering term, in court, because they wanted to deny they were a religious movement. This claim was a lie (which WP editors now often repeat). Actually the term is reasonably easy to find in 19th century theological debate concerning the teleological argument. The DI use it pretty much exactly the same way (although as Sedley explains their approach is more like Galen than Paley). But this is beside the point, because I understand what you mean and agree: They made the term popular and more notable as a term for what we cover in the article teleological argument, as well as being a term associated specifically with their movement. (The term is used in both contexts, a lot, often together. No one can find a source which says this is a confusion or wrong. And for example no one has ever given a source which implies that the "wedge strategy" has to be present for the term to be used correctly.) But in reality the term is not really interesting, because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Even if they were using a new word for an old idea, we should mention that if sources mention it, right? Anyway, I think we and most experienced editors would agree that the movement deserves an article and the broader teleological argument deserves an article. Both should mention the term. No problem with that.

But I think you are completely forgetting the general policy question which was originally under discussion, and what aspect of the debates about our ID article might be relevant to it, and indeed whether your claim that WP:PARITY is the appropriate guidance is correct. If you search for the word "pedigree" on that talk page you will see the same argument being used over and over by experienced Wikipedians in order to justify the walling off between the two articles (for example the resistance I mentioned concerning adding dab information). It has nothing to do with looking at sources, but about guessing the intentions of other Wikipedians. It led, at least I think, to deliberate ignoring of sources and ironically to WP unwittingly following the DI. Even if I am wrong and they were wrong about the sources, which you have not demonstrated, this is how they argued it, and that is what was relevant to the discussion on RSN. So let me take that point out of the context which you clearly have feelings about:

Let's say you find an article one day where you see that editors have long been talking past each other, let's say about Palestinians and Israel. You find that reasonable-looking sources about a particular link are being excluded and people are understandably sensitive about it. Let's say it involves sources about a claimed link between Palestianian nationalism and Nazism. Let's say that you find that the main argument being given on both sides is that they both suspect that the other side only want to have WP present facts in a certain way because it will favor today's Israelis over Palestinians or vice versa. And let's say both sides can find good journalistic and op ed evidence in their favour, arguing that disreputable movements have promoted the position of their opponents, "proving" that WP should not do what these disreputables do, and indicating that perhaps some Wikipedians are pushing the POV of those movements. It is a claim of guilt by association. What do you do next? I think what we should normally do is go to the best sources, and follow the guidance given by the core content policies. We should not obsess over what bad intentions other editors might have. We go to the best sources. We can also mention op eds where notable and relevant. We avoid being original.

Do you agree on this general point, if not on the specific example of ID? If so, then we are in agreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Context is everything, of course, and if this were Israel/Palestine - an area on which reasonable people may differ - your point would be valid. It's not about Israel/Palestine.

The article on ID is about the term coined by the Discovery Institute, an objectively false characterisation of creationism as a scientifically defensible theory of origins of life. We have a court ruling to guide us on the provenance and validity of ID. The article covering the term is teleological argument. If you want the ID article refactored to cover the term, and split off the ID coinage to something like Intelligent Design (creationist Trojan horse) then feel free to propose it on Talk, but what you're proposing is somewhat akin to adding historical sources on fraternal relations to Big Brother, with the effect (and I am sure it is not intentional) of making authoritarian dystopias look less problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• To me the subject we were discussing is resolved well enough by your agreement on the hypothetical case. Clearly indeed that change of context helped, and your personal understandings about ID would not allow you to agree with me in the original example context.
• Concerning the differences between us about ID, if you are aware of any source which demonstrates that I am wrong in anything I said, I would be honestly interested and appreciate a note about it. Please note by the way that some of the ways in which the ID article has been changed over the years resulted from my period of discussion there, for example it now does have a dab header. Based on the difficulties of getting such obviously needed things, and the types of arguments and sources I saw, I do think my Palestinian hypothetical is accurate as a parallel.
• I am understanding your proposal about a new article to be both sarcastic and not well thought through. (I can't even follow the last sentence. How can we find sources for historical relations to Big Brother?) If that is incorrect then I leave it up to you concerning whether you want to explain more about why it makes sense. Personally I think that there are already too many articles about this same subject, and there should be more merges. We don't need an article for every aspect of a subject, if those articles all look like articles about the same subject, as do Intelligent Design and Intelligent Design Movement.
• "with the effect (and I am sure it is not intentional) of making authoritarian dystopias look less problematic" I just register that "there is that logic again". Let me note once again that in fact, this should not be a factor concerning how we use sources on WP. If Nazism was notably and verifiably influenced by a poet everyone loves, then we report it. If the ID movement verifiably and notably uses older religious terms and ideas, then so it did, and we report it. I think you agreed with that.
• IMHO, much of the drama on the ID article is coming from people struggling with reconciling religion and modern science personally. Some people need to believe that the DI is like nothing which ever happened in the history of religion and philosophy, because they want to protect some sort of "rump religion" they have. Our best sources deny that this is correct though and show us the ID movement uses old ideas and words. And in fact religion and philosophy is filled with similar examples. The use of "noble lies", especially concerning religion and piety was argued for by the Socratics who are also the source of teleological arguments, making ID's wedge strategy quite old fashioned in approach. As with heliocentrism, the Socratics were quite aware of arguments for evolution and concerned with the effect it would have on piety. They used the language of science, natural philosophy, to support religion and piety. This well known step was considered controversial then too and influenced medieval approaches to science. But WP is methodologically sceptical, like modern science and modern scholarship generally, not pious. This is a different approach to Socrates, and WP should not be defending any kind of spiritualism or religion. ...So (TLDR) either you have sources, or else your personal opinion is just your personal opinion and not relevant to what we put in WP. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Mabelina has written on his page, repeatedly linking my name, and, well, not quite yours, but he linked User:JzG/help, which was probably an attempt to ping you. I don't have time to look at it properly right now, I will later, but it's not looking good — I mean I suppose the hint that "one alternative route could be very expensive" can only mean one thing, and that's not all. Anyway, I'll get to it, and give him some information as well as remove tpa, unless you get there first. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Never mind, Bbb23 has already revoked tpa. Funny story: when I started to read Mabelina's post beginning @Bishonen and JzG/help: I have now had sufficient time to look back at some other instances on the Admin board & I can see there are quite serious instances of downright rudeness, falsification, etc…,[1] I thought at first he was referring to his own posts on ANI, and was writing an apology. That probably shows my lack of experience with the user. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Comment on Talk:Michael Greger

I'm troubled by this comment. It's one thing to disagree. But to accuse me of supporting crankery when I am trying to reasonably work through a policy issue is really insulting. I never endorsed any of the people in the BLPs under discussion, and that's a complete misrepresentation of my view.

I discussed the issue of using PARITY to override BLPSPS with an admin here and she told me straight-up that it was not permitted. So I hope I can be forgiven for thinking policy is against using self-published sources in BLPs. I even suggested changing the policy to allow some use of such sources against cranks. Yet you apparently see this as a pro-crank position. I would appreciate if you'd at least explain why you think I'm wrong, rather than accusing me of harboring secret alt-med sympathies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You are using policy as a crowbar to try to get your opinion reflected as fact. There is no problem with the text you dislike so much - it is, in fact, completely accurate, however much some people might wish it were not. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what opinion you imagine I have. I probably don't have that opinion, because in fact I'm dubious of all these people, as I've made clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing for something you don't actually believe? Fine, whatever. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been arguing that the current use skeptic SPSs in BLPs of pseudoscientists, which is supported by consensus, is nevertheless prohibited by WP:V. So I want to propose a change in WP:V to allow it. There's a separate and less significant argument about the merits of the specific source in the Greger article which is not worth getting into - but note that I endorsed the criticism of Greger from a different SPS that Alexbrn previously added, which said he offers a biased perspective by selectively excluding coverage of certain studies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I will review this and perhaps revise my opinion when I have some time, possibly later today. Is that fair? I am in the middle fo a large project at home. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

spam whitelist

Hi Guy, regarding a recent 'declined' you marked at the spam whitelist, I'd very much appreciate it if you would reconsider. I don't believe the fact that it is a self-published book makes it an unviable source, in this context. There IS a reliable source that proves the lulu.com link is the only 'legitimate' ebook version of this person's thesis, and the fact of the thesis' existence is crucial to her ongoing notability. I've explained this in greater detail on the request page: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Lulu.com_listing_for_.22Offending_Women.22. Sincerely, Wittylama 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wittylama: No chance, sorry. A self-published book being used as a source for its own existence? If there are no independent reviews, then it is simply not significant enough to include. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing ICat Master?

A few weeks ago you indefinitely blocked Mouse001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a SPA / likely sock.[2] Would you mind checking on the edits of ICat Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They too are a brand new account that in their first few edits begun edit warring on US Presidential election articles, and seems to have a very similar approach. Whether it's the same person or not this seems to be a WP:DUCK case of sockpuppeting. Let me know if it would be better to file a SPI, but those are quite tedious and inefficient for dealing with throwaway accounts. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI/EW report, that seems like a next step — though I'm afraid the admins there might just issue a warning or short block. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Perncious fringe theories related to gravity

Could you take a look at the bottom of Talk:Planet Nine, the section about Lorenzo Iorio? Do you recognize this pattern of activity? It's been going on since at least 2009. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That is one of the most bizarre ones I have seen. It will take a while I think. Almost worth going for community sanctions, to fast-track ejection of new SPAs. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Somebody came along at Talk:Planet Nine and explained there are two researchers having a massive online feud, battling all over the internet with "fake accounts". There's no real knowing if one (or both) are behind this catawampus on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And if we speculate, no doubt someone will cry "OUTING!". Guy (Help!) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's why I use words like 'catawampus'. Before anybody can take offense, they will get sidetracked trying to figure out what I said. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. As I said at the bottom of Talk:Planet Nine, I am a relative of Lorenzo Iorio. There, I've put several external links on him which, at least in my opinion, may induce you to change your mind about the speedy deletion you made. In any case, I wish to appeal against the deletion of the page of my relative: what is the procedure? I think that it would have been more appropriate to start a regular way, also in view of the comments by other users, not connected with myself nor with Iorio. Please, let me know. Thanks for the attention. Regards. 21a12 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

POV accusation

You should likely note [3] and the implications it makes concerning you. I pointed out that there is am actual process for appealing any close, but some seem more interested in bashing than in accepting actual Wikipedia policy :(. Thanks. Collect (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"[S]ome seem more interested in bashing than in accepting actual Wikipedia policy". Please, tell us more about attacks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have said they can appeal via WP:AN/WP:ANI. Any RfC close is likely to leave some people unhappy, independent review is always an option and I usually try not to get involved with it unless I feel really strongly because - like block appeals - there is a chance of pride taking a part in the defence of the close, which is probably best avoided. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: The use of "rumoured" with its clear implication that "this is not a fact" is being repeatedly altered to "reported" with the clear imputation that it is a fact that Gillespie and Holt were actually lovers. I suggest this is in direct and thumbing-nose denial of the RfC close you made for Harold Holt. They are not seeking a review of the close - they simply act as though the RfC never existed. Sigh. Collect (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gillespie, the subject, used the word "lover", along with several others who were close to Holt. That is not a rumor. Our job is to relay that without interpreting or speculating over the meaning of said word. "Reported" is a perfect solution to avoid saying this in Wikipedia's voice, as it seems to be your biggest concern. The only "argument" you have got left is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I should stress for those that haven't bothered that the "several others who were close to Holt" includes Holt's wife. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

They appear to have an unhealthy obsession with this. I suggest ANI. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The self-inflicted irony just keeps pouring out here... while Jack Upland and The Drover's Wife have been doing actual work improving the article based on collaborative work and consensus, the two of you keep discussing ways of thwarting it - to quote Collect, "in direct and thumbing-nose denial" of sources and said consensus. I suggest the two of you drop the WP:STICK, the sooner the better. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First, in case it was not obvious, I did not even look' at it, I simply advised him to take it to ANI. Second, you just proved my point. Third, my supply of givable fucks is now exhausted. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, by "the two of you" I meant you (Guy/JzG) and Collect. As for the givable fucks, it's always nice to see such overwhelming display of civility by a Wikipedia admin. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

We're citing the (extremely reliable) academic biography of the guy and the memoirs of his wife. You're citing a couple of questionably-reliable-at-best articles out of context for...what reason I'm not sure exactly.

Guy, you based your close upon an understanding of fact that was objectively wrong because you didn't read the discussion - if you're going to argue with the dude's biographer and the dude's wife's memoirs, at least try to present a basis in any kind of reliable source for doing so.

I am open to any wording that describes what reliable sources have to say about this, but you just seem intent on pretending that his biographer doesn't exist at all and his wife never wrote about it in her memoirs for reasons that I cannot comprehend. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who made the offending change to "reported". I did this in the course of removing an 8 year hoax from the article, which necessitated the rewording of the text. I would not have done so if I had realised this would be perceived as contravening the RfC. I am do not have an obsession with Harold Holt's love life. The page was on my watch-list because I was interested in prime ministerial succession, and this led me to respond to this bizarre RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Logos of the digital channels of the NPO.
Message added 21:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

XPanettaa (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a request-for-critiques going on

Dear Mr. Guy:

About your revert of my work on Lester Coleman

I requested critiques. Then I removed all the uncertain sections, until I had time to research them. Will you kindly undo your revert? I did a lot of work. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

If you don't revert the page, then can you just revert the talk-page, too, so that my discussion of the page (where I was asking for critiques and discussing the page with editors for 2-3 days) as well? If you are going to ignore that I was in the process of negotiating and blank-out all my work, without reason for debate, then just wipe out my discussions, too, to be consistent.

But then don't call this the dictionary that "anyone can edit".

Because it will be the dictionary that "can be edited, unless [fill in the blank]"

Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Overlapping circles

Hi Guy, I've closed the RFC on overlapping circles to remove the content per snow. However, even when it's obvious whcih way it's gonna go, try not to give people reason to argue against an RFC because of a non-neutral title. I'm not saying the title was inaccurate but it may have been inappropriate. SPACKlick (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 re-opened

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.