User talk:Levelledout/Archive 3

< User talk:Levelledout

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 26 July 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Levelledout) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:12, 26 July 2015 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Levelledout) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk:Levelledout Archive

Sourced text is not weasel words

I don't think it was a breach of NPOV or the text was weasel words. For example, neutrally written text is not weasel words or a breach of policy.

"Ethical concerns surround the use of e-cigarettes among minors and their potential to undermine efforts to reduce cigarette smoking." "Many have expressed concern about the potential for e-cigarettes to act as a “gateway” to cigarette smoking.39,40 The text is easily verified. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The text that I removed appeared to represent purely the opinions of the author written without attribution in Misplaced Pages's voice and as such breached WP:NPOV. The source is behind a pay-wall and I had no way to verify it in order to alter it to comply with WP:NPOV. But there's no facts in there anyway, just the author's opinions written in editorial style about what "might" happen "if" such and such happens. As such it doesn't seem particularly useful. The reason that I left "the rate of e-cigarette use during pregnancy is unknown" is because that was the only bit that actually reported anything factual.

On the separate point of weasel words, having read again WP:WEASEL I note that it says "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use (weasel words) if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". Feel free to remove those two tags.Levelledout (talk)

You could of added attribution instead of deleting it. I have many PDF files and have checked the text again. The text sourced to a 2015 review is neutrally written. I am very familiar with WP:WEASEL. Some words can be problematic but this is not the case for this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my opinion it said nothing informative or factually based and was written in editorial style, but without seeing the text, which you haven't provided, I can't say for sure. I'm sure that you are very familiar with it, in which case you will know that the source is using weasel words, "Many have expressed concern" being a textbook example of weasel words. Luckily for you it's a reliable source and is therefore permitted.Levelledout (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary but I can add attribution for the text you deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You think that complying with WP:NPOV is unnecessary? I would like to see what the source says first, at the moment I am of the position that the previous text provided nothing informative to the article, whether attributed or not.Levelledout (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You can get a copy here. Just follow the directions. According to WP:ASSERT it does not need attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't get a copy there, it's behind a pay wall. Not going to pay $31.50 USD to look at a single quotation from a source which you are choosing not to paste here. Your point regarding WP:ASSERT is ridiculous since it blatantly doesn't apply what with it being opinion and not fact. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies.Levelledout (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected, both WP:ASSERT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply and both state that it should be attributed since it's opinion.Levelledout (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend before deleting sourced text you might read the source so that you can verify the claim. These are facts sourced to a high-quality review. No serious dispute has been presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Why are you refusing to provide the relevant quote or section? Collaboration would be a good step forward instead of repeating yourself.--TMCk (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well then you will surely agree that now that I have seen the source that you have been withholding from me and the following quote that you have been withholding, that a serious dispute most certainly has now been presented:

"It is currently unknown what percentage of pregnant women use electronic cigarettes, but if tobacco companies successfully convince women that these products are safe or minimally harmful, women of childbearing age who do not smoke could take up electronic cigarettes and pregnant women who smoke could switch to electronic cigarettes or use them to cut down on cigarette smoking, rather than quitting tobacco entirely."

Incidentally your paraphrase of that was a little too close in terms of copyright. And since it was so close, it changes my position not one bit. I have seen the source and the quote above adds nothing informative or factual to article (aside from the bit that says "It is currently unknown what percentage of pregnant women use electronic cigarettes").Levelledout (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can rewrite the text or you can put the text in quotes. This is more than what is unknown. This is also about companies convincing pregnant women to use them. This is a motivation to use them if companies successfully convince women that these products are safe. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already made my position clear. You were bold, I reverted. So consensus is now required. There is presently no consensus regarding this. But why bother having this conversation when yet again you have edit-warred the change back to the article? The whole conversation is pointless when you just simply disregard it, disregard WP:CONSENSUS and do whatever you want. Not only that you have once again disregarded WP:CAUTIOUS by yet again refusing to discuss large edits before making them.Levelledout (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not repetitive text

Some "young people" who have never smoked normal cigarettes have tried e-cigarettes at least once. This sentence is different from the other sentences. Some of the text you moved is about use not motivation. The source said "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." You replaced sourced text with text that failed verification. "Some people use e-cigarettes to circumvent smoke-free laws and policies." is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Levelledout is right. Those edits are well-sourced and the move is appropriate. -A1candidate 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the source it was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This conversation, like the last one, is completely pointless. QuackGuru has already edited has preferred version back into the article. Also note that this discussion should be had on the article talk page, not here. We can't develop consensus here.Levelledout (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The word "some" you added was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment:: I'd move such discussions to the appropriate talk page the moment they appear. That's where they belong for community input, not hidden away.--TMCk (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)