HatlessAtlas

Hi HatlessAtlas, in case you don't get a notification, reply for you on my talk page :-)

ThomasNichols (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, HatlessAtlas, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality stuff

I see where you are in a dialogue with an editor who refuses to recognize your POV. Or. more precisely, refuses to recognize that he has a POV. Am I characterizing this fairly? This certainly isn't just about tone, or even mostly so, but this is the sort of problem we're faced with. You might want to take a look at the Intelligent Design article and talk page. For whatever reason, many of the same editors that contribute to the NPOV policy page are also found at the ID article. As I read it, there is a gross POV problem with the opening section of that article: it is written almost as an attack on ID, and innumerable critical interpretations of ID that ID proponents flatly deny are asserted as fact, in the voice of Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that you get involved at the article, but please take a look and give me your perspective... I'm thinking that this may prove helpful in addressing NPOV. Oh, and is it Atlas or Atless? BTfromLA (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are characterizing my concern fairly. If the editor in question appears to cross a bright line rule, or my concern deepens enough, I'll post it to WP:WQA to raise the profile of the statements and get some advice from an uninvolved admin. This would be my first dispute on-wiki and I'd want to make sure that I approached it correctly.

To respond to your specific comment on ID: I have a gut feeling that there is a significant pro-science bias in the article, but I have some difficulty identifying all of the issues I see. I can illustrate some of them however. Also, for full disclosure, I am going to be a poor evaluator of the neutrality of the ID article, because I have a strong pro-science and anti-ID bias.

• In the irreducible complexity section, a classic tactic I have seen in both sides of the debate is used in a classical way. The 1.0 version of an argument is presented, and then thoroughly refuted. Arguments discussing irreducible complexity have moved beyond professor Behe's original postulation, but I see no mention of the newer arguments that have been discussed, only that Behe's own arguments have been refuted. To be truly fair to the topic, the "irreducible complexity" argument, along with the overarching issue of attacking unresolved questions in biology, would be most accurately and neutrally portrayed by linking to the appropriate articles discussing those unsolved questions. The tactic is disingenuous or dishonest structurally as an attempt to refute an argument, but at the same time, so is the attack. Irreducible complexity fails ontologically, but this is not pointed out.

• The article uses what appear to be weasel words in the construction of their characterization of specific arguments. Specifically, the term "intelligent design advocates advance..." instead of citing the original papers, books, etc, or attributing the statement to the individual who made that statement. In the article structure, this seems to imply two things; first, that the movement's arguments are summed up by the four main arguments presented in the article, and second, that all of these arguments are used by the proponents of intelligent design, and that this is the current form of the argument. This is untrue, as it is an evolving controversy with continually renewed parry and riposte in the public arena.

I find the article to be accurate in its statements and dispassionate in tone, but at the same time not neutral. Please do not quote me in the article talk space, however. If I want to wade into the discussion, I will do so when I can control my biases enough to contribute in good faith. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't drag this discussion over to other pages and, as I said, I don't suggest you get involved at ID, I just think the article is symptomatic of NPOV problems, and it also has a sort of ghost presence in the discussion on the NPOV talk page. As for that article, I'm mostly confining my attention to the lead section. If you have the time, look at the talk page there... I started a thread called "Neutral writing--can we agree on this?" that addressed what I see as a clear NPOV problem, which is related to this issue of editors being unable to separate interpretation and contested opinion from uncontroversial fact. By the way, I don't see why your personal judgments about ID should matter in this-- the point is to present the information neutrally. I aim for a presentation in which people on both sides of a disputed topic will recognize that their views have been presented fairly (that challenge is what attracts me to these contentious topics--I hung around the Scientology articles for a while, too). Of course, perfect neutrality is never achieved, but the fact that such a large number of editors here don't seem to grasp the concept of neutral presentation amazes me. In the case of the ID article, it may be that the IDists poisoned the well with their "teach the controversy" campaign: some of the editors may hear calls for fair expression of the ID-ists views as playing into the Discovery Institute's hands. (By the way, I'm no supporter of ID either, but as I said earlier, I don't think that matters when it comes to NPOV editing.) BTfromLA (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get the chance. My personal views concern is more that I feel strongly enough against ID that even though I could identify places where the tone of the article needs to be corrected for neutrality, to do so would mean shifting the balance of the article away from science and towards ID, and I find myself unwilling to do so. Specifically, while I could write neutrally about ID, I find that at this time, I don't want to.

Fair enough, although your reply makes me even more interested in discussing this with you further (again, I'm not asking that you participate in editing the ID article, I'm just interested in your perspective vis a vis neutral writing). I think that quite a few of the editors there have a POV that any change that would conceivably lend the ID proponents one iota of credibility in the mind of some hypothetical reader is simply beyond the pale. But they don't seem to recognize that they have a POV, let alone understand that their POV interferes with their editorial role to the extent that it would occur to them to recuse themselves from the article. So if you have any insight in how to get through to these folks, I'd be very interested... I find it difficult to understand what seems to me me as a failure to grasp very basic principals of writing, editing and argument. BTfromLA (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I thought that Atlas makes a better name than Atless. I can't take credit for a certain wonderful piece of geek poetry, but I am glad someone recognized my homage ;) . HatlessAtless (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

Well, at the least I'll gladly share some tips with you on how to deal with them. First, understand that you're dealing with smart people. They can and will look up guidelines and policies, and they can and will provide eloquent arguments in defense of their positions, and they will sometimes (often, in fact) be right.

There are three types of civil POV pushers you're likely to deal with. There are those who don't know any better and can be converted. There are those who are civil POV pushers who want to work withing Wikipedia and must be tolerated, even if aggravating, because they are acting in good faith. This second group must be watched to keep them inside the rules, but they are still good editors, and may improve in time. The third group pushes a POV, and either refuses to realize it, or doesn't care, and will not change. The only way to deal with those editors is repeated use of dispute resolution and / or administrator intervention until they either reform or leave the project in peace. Always assume editors are not in the third category.

General Rules:

• cite wikipedia policy whenever possible and do so accurately in your edit summaries. Doing so invites an editor or admin to click diff to check. It also flags that you know what you're doing and that you are thinking about what you're doing. It keys editors in that you've thought about your edits and that you have reasoning for them. For all but the most tendentious editors this will stop a surprising number of problems before they start.

• As soon as you're caught making a mistake, even the slightest one, admit it and move on. It reinforces good faith and makes you look less like a POV-pusher yourself. It will also defuse tensions, and will often calm edit wars and will make some editors stop fighting and come to the table to collaborate. As a part of this, agree with the tendentious editor whenever possible.

• Do not be afraid to go to dispute resolution. Make sure, however, that your posts are defensible to the point of being iron clad. Also, make all of your arguments with the assumption that they're going to be looked at by ArbCom (eventually, diving into controversial topics to make them neutral will cause some to be reviewed anyway).

• Take small bites. Make one small, ironclad edit at a time. Granted that many of your edits won't stand or will be changed, but its easier to argue one at a time why a particular edit is POV

• Always go to the talk page and explain your edits. Give specific reasons for your edits where appropriate. This essentially elevates the discussion; if an edit goes to dispute resolution, in order for an edit of yours to be rejected, the arguments against it must have strength proportional to the strength of your arguments.

• Always compromise. This may sound a little funny, but if you give an inch, you'll be amazed at how much you can gain. For some reason, a lot of editors want to leave their mark on text, but are ok with letting someone else write the sentiment. Use this to your advantage.

The most effective way to catch a POV edit is to expose it to the light of day. Here are some tools you'll find particularly useful:

• Check sources. Read WP:NOR; you'll find some very specific language in there about not going beyond what a source actually says. If a statement goes beyond what a source actually says, fix that. (You'll sometimes find this to change the entire nature of a paragraph or even possibly of an article.) Be careful with this one, as misusing it will be interpreted as damaging the encyclopedia. Also be prepared to have this used on your sources as well.

• Check sources. If they are journal articles or too dense for you to understand, make an effort to learn. WP:NOTPAPERS can help point out that impenetrable sources are not the best ones for wikipedia.

• Attribute sources for POV statements, this is summed up well in WP:SUBSTANTIATE.

• Check sources and identify sources that are biased themselves. Sources that advance an agenda should first be attributed, and then balancing information should be added per NPOV and WP:Preserve. In fact, PRESERVE will be quite useful to you, as you can assert and justify a lot of stuff in there.

• Remember to add sources to many edits you make. Unsourced information is susceptible to summary deletion, but it is very easy to call for discussion on the talk page to defend sourced information and invoke WP:PRESERVE.

• Use tags to call out weasel words.

• Use WP:OWN on editors who refuse to negotiate POV wording or article structure. If they apply WP:IDHT too, dispute resolution will be straightforward in your favor, and you can go to WP:EAR to ask admins for support.

I hope this helps.

HatlessAtless (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a wonderful primer on negotiating contentious articles at Wikipedia, and I hope you can find a place for it that outlasts our conversation and reaches a wider audience. I feel a little badly reading through it; your excellent efforts were a bit squandered on me, as I'm simply not going to get involved here to the extent your outline requires. My profession includes writing, editing and teaching others to write, and volunteering to do more of that in a setting that demands frequent court proceedings and lengthy wrangles over minor edits holds little attraction for me. I do, however, remain intrigued by the opportunity that WP presents to try to better understand mentalities different from my own. I wonder whether there's something I don't get--some way of understanding that I'm oblivious to because my vision is blinkered or my education is lacking. So, my question to you stemmed more out of my looking at the NPOV discussions as a kind of case study than out of my despairing as to how I could contribute to the article. I hope you don't mind if I press that point a little further. I'll use an example from the ID page, because that's the one I've been looking at lately. Here's my thinking process, I invite you to point out flaws, oversights, etc. 1. The Wikipedia NPOV policy clearly implies that-- assuming a viewpoint has passed the tests of notability, verifiability and reliable sourcing--any viewpoint that is contested within the context of a given subject should be presented neutrally, i.e., Wikipedia should present the relevant viewpoints, but not assert that any interpretive viewpoint is a fact. 2. ID has been described by a number of scholars (and one famous jurist) as a contemporary variant of christian creationism. Several of the chief proponents of ID, however, explicitly deny that their movement is creationist, pointing to the absence of any reliance on scripture or insistence on God in their arguments. 3. The article is about Intelligent Design, thus the published statements of the Discovery Institute folks--the main architects and proponents of ID--are germane and belong in this article. 4. Point 2 above makes clear that the claim of whether ID is creationism or religious is a point of dispute. 5. The third sentence of the ID article asserts that "The idea [ID] was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." 6. Clearly, while the claim that they are "creationists," is well sourced (and in my view a sound conclusion), a significant contrary point of view exists. (Not to mention other similarly contested claims in that sentence.) 7. Thus, asserting ID to be creationism or its authors to be creationists is a violation of NPOV, and the claim that they are creationists should be attributed to particular sources, not stated as an unquestioned matter of fact. End of list. To me, the logic of the above is obvious and unambiguous. Once you become aware that there are relevant alternate points of view about something, WP clearly can't endorse one view as true, even if the editors agree among themselves that it is true. This seems to me like a basic starting point for editing here: I certainly understand lots of other points for negotiation and argument: how does one convey the relative credibility of the sources, how much room does the ID position get before criticism is introduced, etc. But the repeated instances of what strikes me as an inability to acknowledge that a POV is a POV among editors here just leaves me scratching my head. Am I missing something? BTfromLA (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that it's an excellent primer, and would make a useful essay. BTfromLA, what I think you're missing is WP:WEIGHT, the requirement that we show minority viewpoints as such, and make clear what the majority viewpoint is. A further policy requirement in WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" requires us to be careful not to present minority pseudoscientific views as if they had the validity of mainstream science. The sentence that you're concerned about is well tested historical fact, that a creationist argument was reformulated in response to court rulings – "By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes"[1] At about the same time, the man who has more recently been described as the father of ID was formulating his own approach to reformulating presentation of creationism – "Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose. "[2] Hope you find that helpful, dave souza, talk 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave, it seems to me that you are misconstruing WP:WEIGHT as it applies to an article specifically devoted to a minority POV. (I think HatlessAtlas' comments below make the same point.) As I read it, most of that policy deals with how a minority position is treated in the context of larger subjects where it is a distinctly minority view; in the case of ID, this provides guidance as to whether and how ID would be mentioned in articles like evolution or scientific method. But the policy makes clear (as I read it) that an article dedicated to an idea held by a minority is a different kettle of fish. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them," where the views "may be spelled out in great detail," and where the undue weight concern is a different one; in the context of an article like the ID one, the challenge is be sure the article "does not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I'm with this all the way. I also fully endorse the WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" policy you linked. Seems really clear, and it is exactly the policy I am calling for. What have I said that suggests otherwise? BTfromLA (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave, re: your comments about the creationism sentence in the ID article, a couple of things. First, the point I'm making here is that since Jonathan Wells and other major spokespeople argue that ID is not creationism (and they dispute some other assertions in that sentence, too, I reckon), the article about ID should allow the proponents' perspective to be represented. The current formulation doesn't allow for it--ID was cooked up by a bunch of disingenuous creationists, case closed. If one allows the relevant facts as well as the relevant interpretations of the facts to be presented neutrally to our readers, the very strong case for interpreting ID as a variant form of creationism designed to avoid certain legal pitfalls will remain, it will be presented in an NPOV manner consistent with WP policy, and our readers will get a fuller picture of what the IDists think they're doing (or at least claim to be doing). The article won't topple into pro-ID propaganda--that's what the WP: Weight policy is there to guard against. As an aside (if you want to talk about this more, I suggest we take it to a separate thread on my talk page, or yours), I do have another objection to that sentence--I think the subject of ID is ill-served by making "Pandas and People" a stand-in for intelligent design. I think there is a very strong case to be made that 'Darwin on Trial,' 'Darwin's Black Box' and the "Wedge" document are each far more important and representative documents of intelligent design than "Pandas and People." BTfromLA (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. If you're more experienced and want to point me to any style guides or help me draft it I would welcome it. To respond to your comment about WP:WEIGHT, it must be balanced very carefully against WP:PRESERVE and not be misused. To quote UNDUE, as much or as detailed a description, and combine that with: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.. The sentiment of the policy is clear: detail may be excluded; facts should not be. To wit: If there is one dominant majority M, and we were to describe it and related counter arguments by several minority groups g1, g2 and g3, it is appropriate to state: "Adherents of group G support x, with detail1, detail2 and detail3. Minority groups g1 [], g2[] and g3[] oppose this position." Since this deprives the minority view of detail, but minority views should not be implied to be incorrect by virtue of not being held by the majority, they must be shown to be incorrect by the weight and prominence of reliable secondary sources publishing the majority view.

I take issue with this statement: further policy requirement in WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" requires us to be careful not to present minority pseudoscientific views as if they had the validity of mainstream science.. First, minority views, pseudoscientific views, minority pseudoscientific views, and fringe views are four different things. Read WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience very carefully. Second, I take issue with the implication that we in wikipedia should somehow rob or imply less validity to a minority view than a majority view, by the minority view being in the minority. Validity is determined by its representation in reliable secondary sources. If we included all relevant, non redundant facts about a topic in an article, it would meet WP:WEIGHT by virtue of being a perfect representation of coverage in reliable sources, which is the definition of proper weight. At the same time, pseudoscientific views will, by definition of being pseudoscientific, be unable to muster the weight of evidence that mainstream science will, which means that they will be overwhelmed by their lack of verifiable facts. That alone will be sufficient to condemn them, we as editors would be violating WP:NOR is we made assertions of judgment without sourcing them. Just as importantly, when a group receives the attention of reliable sources, then it no longer meets the definition of a fringe school of thought, and may merit inclusion. In order for us to make an a-priori judgement about whether a view is or is not "minority" requires us to violate our own policies of WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. To adapt from WP:BLP, "If it is reliably sourced and relevant to the article, the fact belongs in wikipedia". Just as importantly, WP:PAPER combined with WP:UNDUE means that if we need to spin off sub-articles to cover all relevant facts, then we should do so, and then when the sub-article has been created, we go back and edit the summary section into a proper reflection of the sub article. As for using "giving equal validity" to argue that some information should be excluded from wikipedia, this is a perversion of the attempt. "Giving equal validity" is very clear; wikipedians do not have an obligation for manufacturing validity or giving the impression of validity when there is none. Using UNDUE and "giving equal validity" together to exclude information from wikipedia is a fundamental perversion of the intent of NPOV; it is twisting NPOV to do the opposite of what it intended.

Finally, because of WP:PAPER we have no need to restrict ourselves some page length limitation when discussing views. If we have too many views in reliable sources to have a "varying viewpoints" section of reasonable length on a main article, we create another article and discuss the variety of views in more detail, so even the smallest viewpoint that deserves mention can get mentioned. A small minority that has received meaningful attention to its views in reliable sources is significant and deserves mention in connection at least through a sub-article to the main article space. This is a very important difference from a tiny minority or fringe group that has not received meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources. Excluding minority views that should be mentioned in wikipedia violates WP:UNDUE by giving too much weight to the majority. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I'd like to note that whether a view is fringe or small but meriting inclusion in Wikipedia, and what the exact weight of a minority opinion is is often highly open to POV interpretation. Since the definition of proper weight spells out that proper coverage is determined by representation in reliable sources, and that PRESERVE and NOTPAPER suggest that we should fix problems whenever possible by adding more facts rather than by removing them, our guidance is clear. We should defer to the weight of reliably-sourced facts presented in an article to determine majority and minority weights whenever possible (perhaps in all cases). Otherwise we run the serious risk of pushing a POV from an article structure by giving undue weight to the majority opinion by excluding information that should be included, which is the counterpart POV risk to giving too much weight to the minority opinion by implying that they are the same as the majority view. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we're actually in full agreement here. I'm not arguing that "equal validity" should exclude relevant positions, rather that pseudoscience views should be shown in the context of mainstream views, fully sourced. Your point about this referring to pseudoscience rather than minority views as such is accepted, WP:Psci seems to be the appropriate shortcut. ID presents difficulties in that just about all of the expert information sympathetic to their viewpoint is produced by themselves, and expert secondary sources tend to give the view of ID that the article reflects. This may seem unfair to those who want a sympathetic presentation of ID arguments, and of course achieving the right balance is a matter of talk page consensus.

As for making your thoughts into an "official" essay, my feeling is that you probably know more than me about how to do this. WP:OFFICIOUS springs to mind as an example of how to do it, but that's just one of the few I saw springing into life :) . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think I have a slightly different take on every single one of your points, but your spirit is pretty good. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are only slightly non-neutral and I'd go so far as to assert point 4 is in fact wrong.

I'll respond to these section-by-section. There are a few spots where I'm confused about your meaning, including "point 4," but I'll see if I can figure it out as I work my way through. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The Wikipedia NPOV policy clearly implies that-- assuming a viewpoint has passed the tests of notability, verifiability and reliable sourcing--any viewpoint that is contested within the context of a given subject should be presented neutrally, i.e., Wikipedia should present the relevant viewpoints, but not assert that any interpretive viewpoint is a fact. Well, first, if you can find a reliable secondary source to assert then you can include the interpretive viewpoint in the article and attribute it while remaining neutral. I will point out that a group's notability and coverage in reliable sourcing must be relevant to the topic at hand. If a fringe group is notable because of the controversy it causes, but not because it is taken seriously for its views on a subject by reliable sources, then the group passes the criteria for having an article on wikipedia, but not necessarily for having its views mentioned in the main topic article. Reliable secondary sources need to provide some kind of coverage that analyzes, or takes seriously in some way the group's views before the group merits inclusion in a 'viewpoints' section of an article. Article subject matter and approach also need to be considered. Sources must be appropriate to the topic. The New York Times might be an awesome source for ID in a public policy debate, but in an article drilling down into the technical details of evolution, it probably doesn't carry much weight as a reliable scientific source.

It isn't clear to me that we have any significant difference of opinion here... I'm a little unclear what you are saying in regard to my premise, above, frankly. Are you suggesting that the well-known advocates and architects of ID: Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc., do not merit representation in the ID article? If so, I would certainly take issue with you, and I fail to see the logic in that conclusion. I confess I haven't read up on the policy about fringe groups being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have their views presented in an article; on the face of it, the wisdom of such a policy seems dubious. But I won't pursue this unless you really think it pertains to this situation. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The A proper way to handle this is to present the creationist view of history first, and punctuate each statement with a clarification of the mainstream opinion. "ID traces its roots to..." (with sources) and then have attributed statements contesting this, such as "X has pointed out that ID gained prominence after ...". The article should take the approach of assertion, reference, challenge, reference, to allow the facts to speak for themselves. Also, the mainstream quote should be properly attributed to make the strength of the source clear in context, as should the initial assertion. This way, the fact that the mainstream view is more reliable and a more prestigious source will stand out to the reader, without the article needing to make any assertion of its own.

I agree. My only quibble is that I would replace "the proper way" with "a proper way." If such a description begins to sound like a proscriptive formula, it can do as much harm as good. But as I said, that's a quibble: yours seems like an eminently reasonable approach in this case, and I wish the editors would follow it. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Poor choice of wording on my part. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The article is about Intelligent Design, thus the published statements of the Discovery Institute folks--the main architects and proponents of ID--are germane and belong in this article. Interesting. You'll have to use reliable secondary sourcing to indicate that they are the main architects of ID. Find some ID-biased secondary sources that state that first before you try to put it into the article. Also, remember that self-published material is useful for describing what views are, but is not nearly as strong for defending views. Once you find reliable secondary sources containing the comments of the discovery institute, then you can justify the inclusion of their comments. Perhaps you should try adding a section on "major players", then you only need to include a reference that states that the discovery institute is a major player in ID for it to be mentioned. Remember, if you can't find a reliable secondary source to talk about it or to discuss it, it may not be justifiable for inclusion, even if the fact is true WP:V.

I think I'm guilty of assuming too much in this point. There are references to the centrality of the Discovery Institute in literature on ID from pretty much every perspective. The fact that the Discovery Institute is closely associated with the term "intelligent design" and the movement to publicize it is, as far as I know, an uncontroversial fact. If somebody raises an objection. of course, the claim would need to be demonstrated, and if a serious opinion to the contrary is found, the importance of the DI wold have to be treated as a POV attributed to sources a.b and c. But as far as I know, this point is not controversial, either within the ID movement or among editors of the article. So I stated it here as a given--apologies for the confusion. The main DI "fellows" Meyer, Wells, Behe, Dembski, Berlinski, etc. frequently publish op-ed pieces or are the subjects of interviews and profiles in general-interest newspapers and magazines, so secondary sources are easy to come by. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find references that DI is central to ID, then you'll do fine. I have read a bit about ID, but I haven't delved into the discussions here or tried to investigate the article, so my entire discussion was a discussion of approach from a position of ignorance. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the fault was mine for taking that for granted. The centrality of the DI to the ID movement has been stated unproblematically in every version of the article that I've seen, and there is no problem sourcing the claim. If you're curious, a sub-organization of the DI is the actual locus of the ID movement: it's called the Center for Science and Culture. If you peek at their list of officers and fellows, you'll almost certainly recognize the name of whichever advocate of ID you've come across in your reading. (And they manage to quickly form alliances with and public defenses of the occasional high-profile ID supporter who isn't part of the organization, like Ben Stein and his "Expelled" movie which, I've read, features ostensibly comic scenes of Stein searching around Seattle for the Discovery Institute. Sometimes they just reel such folks in--radio talk host Michael Medved was made an officer of the DI not long ago. I doubt they'll ever ask Stein to join them, because his presentation of ID is transparently and explicitly about the acceptance of God). It's an astonishing story, how this small but richly-funded outfit has been wildly successful gaining widespread recognition of and political acceptance for the "ID" concept: I've read poll results that suggest a majority of the US public thinks ID worthy of teaching in schools as an alternative view alongside evolution (as I recall, the poll in question didn't draw a distinction between "teach in schools" and "teach as science," which is obviously very relevant). But with folks like the President of the US weighing in with the view that ID is a legitimate alternative worthy of teaching "so people can understand what the debate is about," the Discovery Institute's ID campaign is clearly a remarkable success: it's hard to think of an equivalent. I have no doubt that the degree of their success, which can fairly be interpreted as a significant threat to science education and the social esteem in which science in held and on which public support for science depends, accounts for some of the fierce hostility to any talk of NPOV in that article. BTfromLA (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Point 2 above makes clear that the claim of whether ID is creationism or religious is a point of dispute. True This may or may not be true, but this point is a waste of time to fight over. As much as you may try to argue with it, there are 3 relevent facts that will be trivially easy to back up; 1, that a lot of prominent adherents of ID were prominent advocates of creationism. 2, that courts have ruled to this effect. 3, that there is a lot of reliable secondary source assertion (prominent public figures, books, etc) that the two movements are the same. This means that there are 3 facts that can each merit their own statement to counter the assertion of dispute. While a neutral article will have the three facts to one dispute, which means the weight and consensus is probably strong enough to assert that the two are linked with some validity.

You say that my claim above, which was my point #4, is true. Above that you say that point 4 is "in fact wrong." Is this true point the wrong point? Obviously, I'm confused about your meaning. I have no problem with the 3-to-1 preponderance of evidence, I just don't think any case can be made that the article is written from a neutral POV when the 3 is asserted as fact and the 1 is refused admission to the article. I think your "assertion, reference, challenge, reference" model works here, too. I never meant to suggest that this dispute should be presented as two sides with equal merit. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My underlying point is that whether the point is disputed (and by this I mean disputed in a way that the dispute merits inclusion in the article). I guess where I was going here is that just because some elements of the ID movement dispute the point doesn't necessarily mean that the dispute is significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I think I should have been more clear about the fact that even point 2 alludes to a dispute, it may not merit inclusion if it doesn't have the secondary sources to defend the dispute effectively without seeming petty. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. .The third sentence of the ID article asserts that "The idea [ID] was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." First, this statement is true. Second, it is non-neutral, as it paints the entire movement as a disingenuous attempt to evade the law (which is 50% of it. The other 50% is just plain ignorance). Want to make the statement neutral? Attribute it to its source. "X and Y have argued that ..." and move it to the section on the history of ID. That de-emphasizes it and instead of asserting the fact as absolute truth, it make the fact stand on the strength of its sources. Those two changes, the second one of which may be more difficult to defend than the first, take the POV out of the article.

Yep, I'm with you, that's what I advise as well. (Although the writing quality is so bad the sentence will need more work--whatever your POV, it isn't quite accurate to say they were trying to "avoid various court rulings." The legal implications of rulings perhaps, but not the rulings themselves.) BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Attribute the contrary point of view, state it, source it, and move on. Since its a sound conclusion, the neutrality of leaving the conclusion in place is plausible. This is an issue of tone more than anything else, but again, as a sound conclusion backed up by sources, your best bet is to pick another point to contest, such as the structure of #5 above.

Well, what I'd really like to do is re-write the lead, because I think it's got terminal problems as it stands (My draft of a first paragraph is here, if you're interested.) I picked this example of NPOV because there seemed to me to be great hostility toward any proposed change that attempted to neutralize the tone of an article that to me--a person who arrives fully convinced of the folly of the ID movement--read as way over the top in it's anti-ID bias. So the NPOV issue needed, in my view, to be clarified before more substantive progress could take place. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Asserting ID to be creationists is NPOV, but its also true. Fix the NPOV with substantiation, but let the fact that ID is mainly a creationist movement stand on its own. (ID is creationism because courts have ruled that way, the leaders are almost entirely former prominent supporters of creationism...despite the argument by prominent ID advocates that this is not the case due to... you get the point). Every single one of those statements can be backed up by a reliable source, and the conclusion is presented in an NPOV way.

This is another one where I'm not sure precisely what your point is. If I'm missing something important, please help me to see it. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That should help clear it up. If not let me know. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The rest of your statements are perfectly legitimate. As to forcing people to acknowledge that POV is POV, when dealing with scientific minded individuals is that one has to present them with an argument in terms of fact that they must confront. For example, in the case where a source is being misused, call it out, and state "this violates WP:NOR's explicit statement clause because the source does not explicitly state that this is its conclusion". That is an article of fact that a civil POV pusher will not contend, since it is true. They may contend that you are wikilawyering, but since you are correctly trying to defend NPOV and that attribution is a recommended way of creating NPOV, you will have a strong case in front of an uninvolved admin. At the same time, refusing to accept such a plain-as-day fact (that the editor refuses to accept that he is making a statement that goes beyond what a source was willing to say) will mean that an uninvolved editor or admin will come down on your side as long as you stay civil. You can't force someone to acknowledge their own POV when they refuse, but you can use the published standards of editing and wikipedia policies to force them to either make clear cut cases of tendentious editing (which over time will earn them the censure of uninvolved admins) or will force them to edit in a neutral way. Remember, they don't need to acknowledge their POV to edit in a neutral way, or to have their non-neutral edits made less objectionable or cleaned up. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice about arguing in terms of fact. As opposed to concepts like fairness? I'll have to think a bit more about what that means. I appreciate all of it--you put a lot of time and thought into responding to my musings. Thank you very much. BTfromLA (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope I was helpful. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to butt in here, the view that ID was originally formulated to overcome or avoid the effect of court decisions is supported both by various expert third party sources and by statements by ID proponents themselves. The lead section has to summarise the main points of the article, and reflect the majority expert view as well as showing and attributing the views of proponents. There are a lot of nuances which are suitably discussed on the talk page. . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that ID was dreamed up as a way to try skirting the court ruling, but yes, the movement started outside the "fringe" after that certainly. Tracing a movement back a long time is a classic trick of trying to legitimize it. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is great, thank you both (Dave, so long as Hatless doesn't mind, I'm happy to have you join in the conversation--Hatless, if you'd rather, feel free to relocate this to my talk page). Unfortunately, I'm tied up with work today, so a full response will have to wait until tonight. But one quick clarification: Hatless, in your point 5 above, you write, "Want to make the statement neutral? Attribute it to its source." YES! THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT! The tiny, trivial observation that to create a neutral article, POV's should be attributed rather than simply asserted is all I'm contending here. It is the resistance to that simple principal--which I would have thought was a universally understood given--that has me despairing. BTfromLA (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources must be cited so that readers can see where the information's coming from, the question is whether attribution in the text gives artificial "equal validity" to views from primary sources unsupported by reliable secondary sources, against the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#External links for "A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting." . . dave souza, talk 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind dave participating at all, or anyone who wants to contribute. (Dave, I commented to you about the essay since I'm a new user who hasn't hit 1000 posts yet, and you are an admin, which means you have a fair bit of experience. I'll probably write it into my userspace and ask for some review before I post it in wikispace)

Dave, with response to your comment about giving "equal validity" to primary sources vs secondary sources within NPOV. Here's where I'm coming from: I don't see attributing something to a primary source as giving equal validity to that primary source, as sources must still be cited, and must be verifiable. The thing is, when stating a "fact", there is a difference between stating "Source X asserts Y..." and stating "Y is true". Whether citing a primary source, or a "reliable secondary source" is irrelevant when one establishes the fact "X has asserted Y". Responding to your concern (and we're probably in agreement here); the place where secondary sources come into play is whether a fact merits inclusion at all. Remember, if it can't be verified, its OR, and this includes whether or not someone is significant enough in a movement for mention. There is a reason self published sources are frowned upon, until someone else takes that source seriously, it doesn't merit inclusion. The way I see it, primary sources are the best source for what someone is actually asserting (A transcript of a controversial speech by a public figure vs a summary in a newspaper), but secondary sources are used to establish importance. If the public figure made the speech and nobody paid attention, then it probably doesn't merit inclusion in any article. In short, my point I think is that attribution alone doesn't give equal validity to a source, but secondary sources determine whether or not to include something. If it merits inclusion, its up to the reader to decide on source validity. More importantly, asserting the primary source as fact risks misleading the reader into believing that the primary source is fact in the first place. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

BTfromLA, just remember to be careful about doing meaningful things? Attribution is only effective when it is teamed up with and backed up by WP:OR, and in the case of #5, it is likely to be an exercise in futility. Here is what's going on: Plenty of reliable secondary sources back up the statement of #5, and not only that, other primary and secondary sources back up subsidiary facts that support that conclusion as well, which means that attribution will not weaken the statement. At that point, you might as well leave it as fact or risk sounding petty. Here's how attribution teams up most effectively with OR: When an entire paragraph hinges on a sourced statement, but when one opens the source, it does not make a reliable claim of consensus. In this case, the statement can be made neutral through attribution, and even more importantly, OR guides against going beyond what a source actually defends. Even in the case of a source making a claim, if its the only source making that claim, attribution can be defended as OR. However, when one gets into situations like #5, there are plenty of sources, which means that OR no longer applies, and there isn't much point in attribution. You'll have to do your homework and see if there actually are enough sources that you can defend attribution as OR in the case of #5, but I am 99% sure they are. Though this does bring up an interesting point, and I'm curious to hear both your thoughts'... Shoould wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy be extended to groups? I know there are prohibitions on insinuating motive for living people, but what about for the collective actions of a group? That might be a way to reformulate some biased phrases. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussing this here

Thank you for ending that difficult conversation. With respect to your comments, my reply to Ludwigs2 was civil and appropriate, considering the constant rudeness (I'll stop short of characterizing it as uncivil or a personal attack). I would ask that you assume good faith that mentoring Ludwigs2 with regards to science was done with all sincerity. He has made some characterization of the scientific method which I would like discuss with him. Since he accepted my offer of scientific mentoring, it appears that he took it for what it was worth, as should you. Trust me, if I so choose to be rude and spiteful, I am well-known for that skill-set around here. When I'm making a good-faith offer, then I should be extended the good faith that it was done in good faith. As for your comments about the spirit of Wikipedia is that there are no experts (yes, I am paraphrasing, but it works)--yes, you're right, and no, you're wrong. There are clearly individuals who are more experienced than others in any number of topics. I can tell you that there is a non-native English writer on medical articles who accepts my help in cleaning up the language, so that it's a better article. How fortuitous that we can write an article well? For example, I know science inside and out, but really only a few narrow fields. But I am completely familiar with the scientific method (which, to be honest, you keep confusing with something called a "scientific POV", which is unknown to a scientist). I think that Ludwigs has the right philosophical understanding of his arguments, but it appears to me that his general knowledge of science weakens his arguments. I'm trying to help to make a better encyclopedia. That's all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"When I'm making a good-faith offer, then I should be extended the good faith that it was done in good faith." I made it very clear in the structure of my posting that I was extending you the assumption of good faith, unless you would choose to ignore the fact that I took care to state so. Given your sensitivity I was very careful to state my intention, so please be careful not to interpret implications into my words when there are none and I state otherwise. If you read my characterization of your post, I made the implicit assumption that your offer was in good faith, but I sensed an arrogance of tone, and my post reflected that. If I feel you've acted in bad faith, I'll state so to your (proverbial?, wiki?) face. Additionally,

"But I am completely familiar with the scientific method (which, to be honest, you keep confusing with something called a "scientific POV", which is unknown to a scientist" I think at best we'll have to disagree here. As a fellow scientist, you know only too well that scientists are only human. In my last post to you on the "consensus achieved" discussion, you seem to have missed my point. Science, in terms of the most reputable peer-reviewed journals that represent the gold standard of science, have no POV, I am 100% agreement with you there. I also agree that research, conducted according to the scientific method, has no POV. However, opinions advanced by scientists do have a POV. Accurately put: observations do not have a POV, but people do. I have not used the term "science POV" in some time, so I would consider it a mis characterization to state that I am confusing anything with that.HatlessAtless (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some things to consider

I actually have a lot on my user page that may be of interest. Check it out User:ScienceApologist#Rules for dealing with pseudoscience. There is a bit of material there about taxonomy and demarcation, tactics that I've seen used over the years by fringe-POV-pushers, and some general principles and guidelines that generally should be followed. I think some of that stuff may fit in well with a newly conceived outline. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there was more thought than I thought:

Well, I agree with where you end up, but at the same time, I disagree completely with your approach, especially your taxonomy phrasing. I think that the net effect of the rules we need in place will be the same as the rules you are describing, but we need to approach them in an even handed manner or we're just moving the battleground, rather than usefully ending any battles. Here's where I'm coming from:

• We need to make sure we have only one set of rules. This accomplishes two important things. First, by establishing one set of ground rules, we eliminate any possible claims of dual-standards, conspiracy, etc. This takes the legs out of many of the "oppression" arguments, and when we demonstrate that we follow our own rules with regards to mainstream science as well, we avoid any credible accusation of problems. We also draw in the good-faith supporters of pseudoscience and elevate the quality of the debate, and in general Wikipedia wins.

• Secondly, we need to have ground rules for extreme minority claims and research in mainstream science. Take my own research into radio telemetry. It is published (as it was accepted as a master's thesis and accepted into the University of Tennessee library), and of reasonably high quality. However, since I took an unusual approach to my research, examining an unusual system architecture that is rarely used, my research, while mainstream, is not notable enough to deserve mention. We must be careful not to set a double standard, however. We should not admonish a Pseudoscience supporter for creating an article with limited scientific traction but unquestioned notability but allow me to create an article with no notability but legitimate scientific traction.

• Third, I disagree with your a-priori taxonomy of pseudosciences in terms of Wikipedia policy. To include it even at the level of a guideline or stronger would be inconsistent with WP:OR and WP:V, two of the key core-content principles wikipedia is founded on. It would be inconsistent with OR because we would be stating or implying that, in all cases, legitimate research is not possible in these topics. Unless we can go and find and refute explicitly every single scientific article, thread of research, and major secondary source on a topic, we run afoul of the explicit clause of WP:OR. There are better ways to deal with it. We also run into problems with WP:V because were we to use your classification system, we run afoul of the accusation that we are applying different standards to different fields of research. Its a circular logic problem: "We claim a topic is pseudoscience. We then use that pre-judgement to demand extraordinary proof that said topic is not pseudoscience." Such circular logic suffers ontological failure, something we as supporters of science must scrupulously avoid.

• Fourth, there is the implication that good research cannot be conducted in these fields or that they will never become sciences. While this may be true, we run into trouble with this assertion on its face because it stands against any sourcing to the contrary. There is in fact some decent research in many of the fields mentioned as pseudoscience. There isn't a lot, and its not generally taken seriously by the major work, but psychology of UFO abductions has some scientific traction.

However, I'll point out that I only disagree with one of your points; "Summary statements". This is unnecessary, as an attributed statement or series of statements is just as strong as an absolute statement. Stating "Of the top 15 journals in Physics as rated by X, none has accepted as a serious topic of research a single paper on Y" is just as effective as stating "There is no scientific basis for Y". What you're clearly worried about here is a pseudoscience pusher trying to weaken the scientific sentiment with attribution. If you're worried about falling prey to that, find a better attributed statement. Defending good, sourced, attributed statements against unjustified removal is also much easier than is generalizations, which are open to accusations of violating the explicit clause of WP:OR.

I think that your intentions have some good place in the policy, but not as they're phrased now. Rather than try to use the policy as a soapbox against pseudoscience, be more clever. If you look carefully at the guideline I am proposing, I am establishing evenhanded tests that test carefully the legitimacy of any scientific claim, mainstream or otherwise. A close analysis of those guidelines will show 3 things. First, they are carefully put together tests or frameworks for examining scientific content of minority opinions. Second, they can be applied with the same justification and requirements to any scientific claim, mainstream or otherwise. Finally, far more (in fact overwhelmingly more) pseudoscientific claims will be shown to be untenable according to the criteria I've laid out than will legitimate scientific theories.

Also not the other advantage of being a little more even handed is that we gain the ability to engage in a defense-in-depth strategy. We can observe, for example with respect to the tiny but extant amounts of legitimate research in UFOlogy, "OK, you've demonstrated a certain amount of legitimate scientific content in your theory, but that part is extreme-minority science. I'll put it on the same notability grounds as X and Y, but it still doesn't merit mention in article Z due to the scientific notability criteria". We control the negative impact and harness goodwill that way. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is when someone writes in plain language: "This idea violates the known laws of physics." and someone complains that it is only according to Dr.s A, B, and C that it violates the known laws of physics. Summary statements are vital if we are going to write an encyclopedia that is readable. We can't make everybody happy and on the balance it is better to paint with too thick a brush and miss some specificity in the interest of clarity than it is to give readers the false impression of a legitimate controversy when there isn't one. We aren't writing the comprendium of everything ever, we are supposed to be editors who can give accurate summary statements when we can find the sources to back them up. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you partially. I will note, however, that if something really is well established fact, then it should be easy to find plenty of sources that state so explicitly. We do recognize though, that for things that are contentious, we do have to engage in a balancing act to get the balance between attributed statements and assertions of fact right. Generally, my approach would be to collect a list (of 8, 10, 15?) references, and put them all on the talk page, and then force the editor in question to either be openly tendentious or back off. It take more research and more preparation, but TE's don't come back at that point. However, at the simple principle level, if something can be expressed in plain language, and the overwhelming sources are in favor of that expression, and are unopposed by reliable independent sources, then the statement should be made clearly. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree, however, that finesse and even handedness when approaching even that simple task will help the process work better for good-faith editors and will help expose bad ones? HatlessAtless (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that finesse and evenhandedness do not work for the truly tendentious who have a soapy bone to pick with the way their pet theory is being described in plain terms. If you think that there aren't editors tendentious enough to continue to press issues despite literally megabytes worth of text then perhaps you should look into some of our more contentious talk pages. The archives at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon is a good place to start. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't.

Please don't do that again. His behavior needs to be exposed, and he needs to be blocked. That was a blatant personal attack from him, and I'm damn right about the game they're playing. "Thanks" to your intervention, I will be unable to finish the report I was compiling and have him blocked. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous diffs will still be in history, so you can pull them and show his attack. Since the talk page history is still there, you can show his behavior to whomever you feel is necessary. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

however, because you already intervened, no admin will bother looking at it. I scrapped my report already, and I'm not rebuilding it. Just be aware that next time, let me deal with just reporting it. That editor's only purpose is to eliminate FRINGE entirely, so I'm sure he'll do something equally insulting soon enough and I'll report him then. ThuranX (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, In that case I'll hold off next time. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

If you can't be bothered to link to an archived discussion that validates your change, don't make the change. I'm not digging through all the archives to guess which thing is the excuse for your edit. Further, the entire edit smacks of SOAPBOX, so I called a spade a spade, not a trowel. Bring the edit to the talk page, per B,R,D. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In the future, I will link, I didn't think of that. I had already brought the discussion to the talk page per BRD when you had posted this. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My decision in an AFD

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiftfuel_(2nd_nomination)

You closed the deletion debate on Swiftfuel with a keep decision without explanation. There was no strong consensus to keep the article, and every single !voter acknowledged the paucity of the information available to the topic, and at least one keep argument stemmed from WP:PRESERVE rather than a justification to keep the article. This logic suggests that more explanation would be required than a simple assertion.

I'd like you to walk me through your rationale in detail, as well as your analysis of the arguments, especially how you came to the conclusion that a keep decision was so self explanatory that it required no additional explanation before I ask for comment in a deletion review.

Thanks

HatlessAtless (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am asking for your thought process on why the keep decision required no explanation. Even though I disagree with that decision, I don't have a problem with it if it turns out that my own distaste for the article is making me not see why it was deleted. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have made it a no consensus closure rather than a keep (and I've amended the closure thusly). Three editors argued to delete:

1. There was your nomination.
2. N Shar argued a very weak delete because there was one source, saying that keeping "would not be a disaster".
3. Xymmax argued a weak delete because while there are sources, they don't verify all that's in the article.

And three argued to keep:

1. Ningauble had a relatively sound rationale, although there was some notion of WP:EFFORT about it.
2. 23skidoo argued based on WP:NOTAGAIN.
3. And SVresolution provided a detailed rationale for keeping.

In summary, the issues with the article are not insurmountable, and there is no overarching policy reason for deletion. There was one regular delete, and two weak deletes, along with one regular keep, and two with somewhat weak arguments. I can't distill a consensus to delete from that. You are, of course, welcome to take the matter to DRV. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Swiftfuel

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. The truth is out there. Of course, it takes time to find it. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show that local newspapers like the Carroll County Comet are still relevent when the reporters keep covering those "boring" meetings. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Latency and Throughput

Hi, I was the latency and throughput guru on the UMB wireless broadband project at Qualcomm, and I also worked on HTTP caching at Network Appliance. I have made some changes in the article Relationship_between_latency_and_throughput, in the web surfing section, using some of my personal notes and references. I hope you like my improvements. SystemBuilder (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here