Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:51, 31 January 2010

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.

our cabal

I'm not sure what the rules are for changing comments on cabals but I assume they're similar to talks so just for reference I'm leaving this message to say refactoring my comments with regards to your not seeing WS' comments is cool by me, just incase it comes up and I'm not around to make this point. Cheers, raseaC 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, thank you. It didn't even occur to me that that might be a problem (since it was my mistake I was correcting), so I'm glad you brought it up. I'll make a note in the mediator's section about it. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea really. At the end of the day it's common sense (seeing as our responses would be redundant without your comment) but I figured that seeing as the discussion has the potential to be nit-picked it's probably best to keep a record of things; you can't be too careful on wiki! raseaC 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you have me do, Kim? I make proposals,..

So you do. But that doesn't help; the GW page isn't short of proposals. But you aren't restricted to the GW page. There are many other climate pages. Most of the folks who have been around for a while tend to be rather skeptical of people who turn up from nowhere and suggest vast changes to the GW page without any track record in actually improving climate articles. Index of climate change articles is a list, if you're short of ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like you're suggesting you've all gotten jaded by the process (which on a contentious topic like global warming is perfectly understandable, if not optimal). I'm not sure what you want me to say about it, though. to my mind, once editors stop responding to new ideas (even bad new ideas) and start reacting to them the whole situation goes to pot. New people on the page will either retreat from it at the first volley, or they will feel attacked and start attacking back, neither of which is a good outcome. I happen to be an unfortunate mix of reasonable and stubborn; I won't generally attack back but I won't generally give up either (not when I feel I have a good cause), and so I get stuck in the middle of these kinds of problems more often than I like. I'm still considering the various options I have for doing what I think needs to be done with this page.

honestly, I could go to other pages, but I'm not sure that would make this particular problem any better. once I start looking at this as a meta-problem I'm probably going to want to restructure the entire cluster of global warming articles (removing POV forks and reorganizing the rest into sensible inter-article relationships); I already feel that urge, but that's just an even bigger headache. I'd prefer to start small. and honestly, this is small - I'm not suggesting a 'vast change' of any sort; merely for an explicit an acknowledgement of what is already necessarily present in the article. (and yes, I understand, there's a resistance to calling it a theory because there's a fear that identifying it as a theory will open the door anti-GW people who want to pov-push other theories in - I get the politics, but I happen to believe that a closer adhesion to scientific principles is the best way to collar the political tripe).

sorry: I'm not sure I'm being clear, but I hope you see what I'm saying. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I could go to other pages, but I'm not sure that would make this particular problem any better. - I disagree; it would. People would trust you more, and would be more inclined to take you seriously. As I've said - the GW page is not short of proposals for change. What those proposals have in common is that they come from people with no track record of understanding the issue. Try actually working with the pages and you'll come to understand them better. Attempting a top-down re-write without that understanding is doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'll start looking around a bit then, if you think that will improve my standing. but I don't think I'm ready to give up on this point on GW quite yet. it bothers me to leave what I see as an essential error standing intact on the page. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think offhand of any errors on the page. If you've identified any in talk, alas it has got buried under the weight of chatter there. I invite you to clearly and succinctly restate here what you consider to be an "error" William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is simple, and something I've explained repeatedly throughout the argument. The article takes a well-established and empirically supported scientific theory about climate change and does its darn best to represent that theory as an observable fact. It's right there in the first sentence "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation". This is just bad science. it should read something like (and this is just a quick rewrite of that sentence, so excuse the clumsiness in language): "Global warming is the theory that observed increases in the average temperature of represent a continuing climate trend." The actual, empirically measured increases in temperature are ambiguous outside of a theoretical framework that organizes them.

Oh I see. yes I've seen you say that: no it is not an essential error, IMO, and I don't think you've convinced anyone else (the dittoheads (I'm not calling you one) will support anything that looks like watering down GW, so don't mistake their support for agreement). That in my view is just fiddly with the wording; it doesn't affect the science at all. But I suspect we're not going to agree on that point. If you see any scientific errors, please point them out William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, it is a factual scientific error; that's not really in question. It's the kind of mistake that your average college science student could expect to get marked down for. and while it would be nice if I could convince people, I don't actually expect that (expecting to convince people of things they are not open to hearing is an error made by zealots, newbs, and sociologists). I don't want or need support or agreement, not from you or from the people you seem to dislike. I'm holding out for a simple, civil, reasonable discussion of the matter, with an eye to possible compromises or consensual changes. do you think that's possible?

I don't think we can yet attempt to discuss the matter, because you are rushing ahead too fast - you have not yet convinced anyone that there is any matter to discuss. You say it is a simple factual error, and oddly you say that's not really in question. Well, of course, it is in question. I say that there is no problem. How are you going to convinve me that the error exists? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm supposed to convince people before we have a discussion on the matter? that strikes me as an odd problem in metaphysics: how would I accomplish that? actually, I already know the answer to that (there's really only one thing you could mean by it), but it's a useful point for you to consider.

I've made my case succinctly a couple of times (now archived, I think). The only person who bothered to respond with anything more than (the moral equivalent of) 'shut up and go away' had nothing to say after I explained the scientific issue. I could take that as a sign that he agreed with me, but I think it's more likely (given later comments) that he was stubbornly refusing to accept good reasoning that went against his personal interests. sad, but unfortunately common on wikipedia. when I say that it is a factual scientific error, I mean exactly that - it is a misrepresentation of the science that any scientist would recognize as a misrepresentation (though, of course, most would consider it to be a minor and easily remedied mistake rather than a major problem). You are a scientist (so I gather) and I have noticed that to date you have avoided addressing the methodological point directly, but instead have tried to render the conversation moot before it gets to an actual discussion. I make no speculations beyond that, and I don't really need an explanation of it, but I have noticed. would you care to discuss that methodological point now? If so, let's do it over on the article talk page. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm supposed to convince people before we have a discussion on the matter? - yes: you need to convince people that there is an issue to discuss. I've said that already. I've also said that as far as I'm concerned it is an issue of no import, a mere fiddling with words, which is why I haven't bothered to engage with it. I'm not a scientist, though I used to be. A glance at my page would have shown you that; why do I need to waste both our time correcting you over easily verified trivia? If you wish to discuss the methodological point, I am prepared to listen. I recommend against doing so at the GW talk page; discussion there usually gets hijacked by interjections from fools; here at least there comments can simply be removed. It would be best to create a new section just for you and I to discuss this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I only meant that you've had scientific training, not that you were currently practicing. I rarely look at user pages, sorry; I prefer to take each editor completely at face value when I interact with them. as for the other suggestion, let me sit with that a bit. I do understand your concern, but if you're serious about discussing the matter properly, then it really belongs in article talk space, not in user space. and heaven knows that page could use a positive model of consensus discussions. let me weigh the options... --Ludwigs2 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, that first sentence is simply wrong. That might be the "scientific" definition of "Global Warming", but that is definitely NOT the way the phrase is used in the US press on either side of the issue. In fact, that is not the way the phrase is used in most wikipedia articles. An interesting challenge might be to get some outside parties to locate a few dozen uses of that phrase in various articles and then write definitions based on the context. I suspect that there will be at least 4 different (but somewhat related) definitions, none matching that first sentence. Q Science (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I've been saving the reference approach until an actual discussion gets started (partly because I'm lazy, and partly because I hate using research combatively). However, please note that this article is heavily argued to be covering the scientific aspects of GW. If it were covering the political/journalistic side, I'd see your point more, but since it's ostensibly about the science, it really ought to cover the science properly from a scientific perspective. You're not going to find many scientists (at least none who aren't already tenured) who are willing to risk their reputations saying that GW is a fact - what they will inevitably say is that all available research supports a theory that the world is undergoing progressive warming. very different statements that need to be reflected in the article. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet most of that article is theory and politics. Q Science (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

which is a good part of the reason I'm arguing on that page - inconsistency bugs me. but as I said, I can see this article being a nice summary of the actual research; I don't think we need to get into the politics here (at least currently - that might change in the future) so long as the science is fairly and accurately represented. --Ludwigs2 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have got bored with the idea of discussing this, which is disappointing. Drop me a note if you ever become interested again William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not bored; I just have a life outside of wikipedia (sporadically, at least). I'll be back to it, no hurry, no worry. maybe tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

methodology discussion

ok, I've decided that it's worth the effort to discuss it off the talk page, if only to satisfy our mutual curiosity. THe basic methodological point I'm raising revolves around the nature of empirical observations. an observation of an effect is not in itself meaningful; it only takes on meaning within a theoretical structure. so, for instance, I have no doubts that the increases in global temperature are valid empirical measurements, but that fact is conceptually trivial. The interesting and important questions which that fact raise center on the causal mechanisms behind that increase and the possibility that the increase reflects an ongoing trend. but these are questions of theory: one side develops one theory, another side develops another theory, a third develops a... and then more empirical evidence is sought out to give weight to one theory and make another seem less reasonable.

OK, I got as far as here. apologies for breaking up your comment but I disagree sufficiently that there is no point progressing. I don't disagree with your essential point: the way theory and observations mix. Without a good theory, we would have no reason to be particularly interested in the way light reflected off a certain column of mercury happened to conincide with light reflected off nearby scratches on the glass which coud be interepreted as a rading of temperature. Or, indeed, why signals received at what we call a satellite groundstation could be interpreted as messages from a satellite which is informing us that its radiometers have recieved certain signals which when processed through yet more algorithms can be interpreted as a temperature measurement of a certain layer of the atmosphere.

But all this is going far far too far into the metaphysics of theory to be of any interest to the GW page. We're not going to patiently explain to people observation theory. So I think your ideas are just in the wrong place William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, to an extent you're right: this is my explanation to you of why we need to discuss theory on the GW page, not what I would expect to appear on the page. All the page itself needs to do is acknowledge the theoretical basis of GW. if it doesn't do that, then it is drastically misleading readers by asserting that a theory is a fact. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see on this page is that a lot of editors try to present matters of scientific theory as though they were actual facts, and that only serves to weaken the theory itself. when we stick to reporting only empirical observations, two bad things start to happen: first, people start to import theory in under various guises (because as I said, the interesting and important points are all theoretical), and so you'll get these weaselly constructions such as "Instead, global warming is expected to cause changes in the overall distribution and intensity of events..." (where they actually mean "Instead, the theory of global warming predicts changes in the overall distribution and intensity of events..."). second, this gives global warming skeptics (to use what is apparently your terminology ) the grounds to complain, because if you don't address the topic as a scientific theory, then any theory that purports to explain the observations seems superficially reasonable. the only way to properly present something like global warming is as the scientific theory that best explains the observable evidence; that's not only accurate scientifically, it also automatically puts other theories in their proper NPOV prominence (as minor, semi-disproven theories on the same topic). win/win as far as I'm concerned. your thoughts?

Global warming

Ludwig, I notice you have made a few contributions to the global warming article. I tried to give you some history of the article, but it got removed by someone. Basically, climate articles used to attract a varierty of people with different views, but it was a very unequal "fight" because somehow certain people, seemed to be able to work 24/7/365 on the articles and they were clearly being fed inside information and could literally "arrange" for the right papers to appear to support their slant.

It was also very common to see Misplaced Pages rules being used to ban people - and having experienced how this worked, it was pretty clear to me that there was a team approach attempting to wind up individuals to the point at which they got so frustrated they broke the rules - and miraculously there was always a willing admin just on hand to ban the user.

So, through a combination of banning users, and users simply giving up and "letting them have the rope to hang themselves", the articles were left very much to a small crowd of people, who appear to me to have the feel of those we saw in the climategate emails (no proof - but there's clearly some involvement because they have the same modus operandi).

What I'm trying to say, is that there is a very professional organisation behind the climate articles, and they have all but ousted anyone with a contrary view. This is important for you to realise, because

1. if you don't have the time, skills, and position within Misplaced Pages you are basically wasting your time (... to be honest I suspect there is high level support in wikipedia for the POV in the articles)
2. even if you do miraculously have the necessary background to write these articles, then given the history, you are not going to get the experienced editors you need to bring in NPOV because they have long since left Misplaced Pages

This is not intended as a council of dispair, it is my best assessment of the history of these articles, and to be quite serious, I personally just want to see some honesty in the subject and I wish you all the best if that is your intention! 85.210.3.125 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Point noted, and I thank you. unfortunately, this kind of argument does not interest me. I understand the political facts of wikipedia (better than almost anyone else here, if you want to know the truth), but this kind of speculation has no real use. sure, it makes everyone feel better to be able to label and identify some 'thing' that's the cause of all problems, but the political reality is always a lot more complex and a lot less nefarious than that. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've not managed to put you off - you clearly are some nutter with a death wish! But seriously, I went through a similar exercise myself and after a month of complete utter nonsense on just one sentence I realised that one side had not the slightest intention of accepting any kind of neutral input to the article (that was a time when I was pro-warming). The thing, is that the same people that obfuscated the editing then are still writing the articles. The thing you have to realise, is that when the climategate emails talk about "changing the definition of peer review to prevent publication" ... they didn't just mean journals, they meant using the same technique on articles on Misplaced Pages. If you are mad enough to edit global warming, you will quickly realise that everything that is pro-warming is miraculously fast tracked peer reviewed and every other opinion is discounted because it isn't. Honestly, trying to source material for NPOV on global warming, is a bit like trying to source material on the infallability doctrine of the catholic pope - when the only source you can quote is "peer reviewed" catholic journals. 85.210.3.125 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What happens in scientific journals is a matter of sourcing that I have no control over. If the journals are irresponsible enough to fudge data they will eventually fail, because scientists don't like journals they can't trust.

The 'climategate' issue is mostly a political matter that has no real impact on the science of global warming. Science is pretty much like any other profession in the world - a pound of effort, a cup of arrogance, and a dash of spite - The main difference being that science always (in the end) has to deal with the physical reality of things. don't even go there with me.

I am not easy to dissuade from what I think is right. If that makes me a 'nutter with a death wish', so be it. --Ludwigs2 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Might want to check-in here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force for to-do activities to earn brownie points with the aggressive folks acting like expert owners. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems really unlike you, Ludwigs2. I remember working with you on some alternative medicine articles a while back and, while I think the points where we disagreed probably took up more space on the talkpages, my impression of you has generally been that you are reasonable and insightful. I will be the first to admit that the tone of discussion on the climate change pages right now is far from ideal, but I would really appreciate it if you could try a bit more raise the level of discourse rather than adding to the problem. Please take this as simply a friendly comment of surprise and perhaps an indication that your frustration may be getting the better of you - I have no intention of ever taking any direct admin action where you are concerned. There is Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, but I would honestly be surprised if it comes to that. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) (formerly Eldereft) 08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as a PA. I'm surprised you didn't, 2/0. Though thinking about it, perhaps you were hoping L would and I've now prevented that. In which case, sorry. In which case, to L: I suggest you remove the whole thing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

well, you might have a talk with Nigel, as well - it really sucks when the he deliberately misconstrues what I said to that extent (and yes, it has to be deliberate - no one could get from what I said to what he said I said without a whole lot of thought and effort). It serves no real purpose, except that it forces me to go back to step one and re-explain what I was actually saying, which will just draw out the conversation longer and longer. I'm really not going to be put off by misrepresentation, and I assume that nobody (not even me) wants to listen to me correct that kind of silliness ad nauseum, so it might be for the best... but either way.

sorry I nose-snapped him. I think he thoroughly deserved it, mind you, but it was bad form. I'll try not to let it happen again. --Ludwigs2 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nigelj's comment to which you were responding was also pointed in somewhat the wrong direction. I have requested that they exercise a little more restraint to keep these discussions more collegial than disputatious. And thank you for trying, I will see you around. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

An idea

As I have thought about the page you created Misplaced Pages: Arguments to avoid in discussions, I got an idea:

One of your main concerns was clutter. The idea I had is as follows:

• The page would simply be called Misplaced Pages: Arguments to avoid. Simplicity is congruous with WP:KISS.
• There would be individual sections. One would list arguments to avoid in favor of keeping. Another would list arguments to avoid in favor of deleting. Others would list arguments to avoid in other situations.
• The lists would all be in chart form
• It would be in similar format to Misplaced Pages:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates

Here is a sample chart:

Sebwite (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I could work with this, yes. I've actually been mulling over something else, though. Part of my hope here is to generalize this 'AtA' concept to other talk page situations than yes/no, keep/delete binaries. for instance, I want to point out that reverting a big addition with an edit summary that says 'rv per NPOV', or responding to a argument on a talk page with 'we've rejected this before. look in the archives' is an insufficient form of argument. it hasn't quite come into focus for me yet, though. I mean, I know how I'd write that up for an academic audience, but putting it simply and clearly is escaping me at the moment. --Ludwigs2 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am thinking of is as follows:

• A chart for all the not-so-good "keep" arguments
• A chart for all the not-so-good "delete" arguments
• Charts for each of the other types of arguments
• Anchors for each line of the chart to make shortcuts work
• I am thinking that eliminating the sample signatures may be a good idea in order to simplify the appearance
• Keep the older pages active for a while until people can see how well people like this one. If it can be accepted, others can be merged into it.

Sebwite (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I am starting to construct something like this at Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in discussions/construction sandbox Sebwite (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility policy

I'm sorry that an admin was incivil to you. Did you want to email me off-wiki with your concerns, if they are still occuring? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is (relatively) ancient history, and it wasn't an admin I was talking about, just a well-liked editor. If you have any familiarity with pseudoscience issues on wikipedia you could probably make an educated guess who I'm talking about - there's a small group of (what I would call tamed trolls, but others refer to as) experienced editors who follow an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy about driving off "fringe advocates". I can't fault them entirely, because they do a lot of good productive work, but they gamed a whole lot of editors into getting undeserved indef blocks, and taught me that being mild-mannered, thoughtful and collegial (my normal preference) is a luxury on wikipedia. now I watch for certain signs and behaviors that I've learned to recognize the hard way, and go straight for an intellectual choke-hold when I see them. sad really... for me, and for anyone who ends up on the receiving end of my Mr. Hyde side. my interest in this incivility policy, honestly, is that I'd like to cut that kind of aggressive behavior off at the knees and produce the kind of thoughtful, collegial atmosphere I prefer. my inner cynic tells me that's not going to happen as long as there is weasel room - editors with entitlement issues won't even think twice about abusing loopholes to get their way. but I can't claim to be detached about the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

I noticed you were contributing the a debate on primary, secondary and tertiary sources at WT:NOR. Are you aware of the draft separate guideline on PSTS? The idea is that it would allow WP:NOR to concentrate on the NOR aspect of PSTS. The definitions etc. etc. would be in the guideline. Take a look at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Yaris678 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

no, I wasn't aware of that. frankly, I wasn't aware that we had a WT namespace. I'll take a loot at it. --Ludwigs2 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WT is just Wikpedia talk. i.e. talk pages of pages in the Misplaced Pages name space. You've been there even if you didn't know about the short cut!  :-) Yaris678 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - yeah, I figured that out. --Ludwigs2 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy (but not really)

L2, are you available to continue work? The page is in rather a state and I'd welcome it. Are you having a fraught time? Best of best anyhow. Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, too many irons, too little fire. I'll take a look at it in a bit. leave a note on the talk page about specific concerns. --Ludwigs2 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A tee-shirt

lol - thank you. I'm trying to figure out the symbolism of the paperclip: should I go with something cheesy like "it binds us together"?

Spiral Dynamics

Thanks for the tips - I'll add my concerns to what I've already said on the talk page and will replace the templates with a multiple issues template.Autarch (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

I ask for input and lay out where I'm looking to go on Tao. You've expressed an interest in helping with fixes and copy edits, and the topic more generally. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also welcome someone else to rewrite the lede to better introduce the article and reflect the scope expansion. You're welcome to give it a whack, but so are any of your talk page watchers. :) Vassyana (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Manners

You wrote on my talk page: david, please don't take this the wrong way, because I mean it as a serious question. do you have an attention deficit problem that I need to be aware of and compensate for? you so consistently forget and misrepresent what I've actually said on the alternative medicine talk page that I can no longer assume that it's accidental; if I need to adjust my communication style to accommodate other needs, please let me know. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

L2, take this any way you like: if you feel that people are not understanding you, and this is consistent (and it is, and not just by me), then you need to think about whether you're communicating properly. And if lots of people tell you you have bad manners, you probably do. Your comments are shockingly offensive, and it requires all my restraint not to respond in kind. DavidOaks (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant no offense, and there is no way to ask that question easily. There are just numerous examples of where you quote me as saying something far from what I actually say or believed on that page. If this is not the case, then I will happily retract the question, but it still leaves open the question of why that is happening. my apologies for any offense; none was intended. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

they're free!

That is, the best chill pills are. I try for humor. Laughter is the best medicine, especially in 'chill pill' form, I think. If there's an argument going on, and you can get one of the sides to laugh, sometimes that's all it takes. (some people can get royally PO'd, but that's just their own interpretation, often setting up for more humor ;) The way I see it, there's no sense being mean when there's plenty of fun to be had being nice. :) --Neptunerover (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)