| Revision as of 16:31, 5 August 2017 editCommotioCerebri (talk | contribs)55 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:58, 6 August 2017 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits please try harder to explain your reasoningNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. ] (]) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC) | After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. ] (]) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. ] (]) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | :First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. ] (]) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :* If you think ] is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a '''specific passage''' you think is relevant? | |||
| :* No offense, but I don't think the reply, above, is a defense of your excision. Could you please try harder to explain your excision? | |||
| :* In you called ] a mere ''"reseacher"''. Excuse me, but isn't he the holder of a named chair, at a highly respected University? Doesn't that indicate someone important considered him one of the top figures in his field? <p>] says: ''"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..."'' So, hasn't a leading figure in his field chosen to identify a crane-climber as the poster-child for a type of risk-taking personality? <p>So, if Farley, a leading figure in the study of risk-taking behaviour, comments on crane-climbing, as a risk-taking behaviour, can you explain how that is not relevant to an article on crane-climbing? ] (]) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:58, 6 August 2017
In this edit an inexperienced editor, one with only a dozen or so edits, excised a paragraph about a well reported crane climbing incident, with the edit summary "I have removed the bit about MArisa and the article by FARLEY. As the Globe and Mail piece is an oped it would be considered a primary source and wouldn't be acceptable per Misplaced Pages:MEDRS."
I question whether any of the references they excised should be considered a primary source. An article by daredevel Marisa Lazo, or rescue fire captain Rob Wonfors, would be a primary source. A plain ordinary newspaper article is not a primary source.
Nor do I agree that the article in the Globe and Mail is an "op-ed", or otherwise barred from use here.
After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you think WP:MEDRS is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a specific passage you think is relevant?
- No offense, but I don't think the reply, above, is a defense of your excision. Could you please try harder to explain your excision?
- In this comment you called Frank Farley a mere "reseacher". Excuse me, but isn't he the holder of a named chair, at a highly respected University? Doesn't that indicate someone important considered him one of the top figures in his field?
WP:RS says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." So, hasn't a leading figure in his field chosen to identify a crane-climber as the poster-child for a type of risk-taking personality?
So, if Farley, a leading figure in the study of risk-taking behaviour, comments on crane-climbing, as a risk-taking behaviour, can you explain how that is not relevant to an article on crane-climbing? Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)