Talk:Crane climbing

August 2017
In this edit an inexperienced editor, one with only a dozen or so edits, excised a paragraph about a well reported crane climbing incident, with the edit summary "I have removed the bit about MArisa and the article by FARLEY. As the Globe and Mail piece is an oped it would be considered a primary source and wouldn't be acceptable per MEDRS."

I question whether any of the references they excised should be considered a primary source. An article by daredevel Marisa Lazo, or rescue fire captain Rob Wonfors, would be a primary source. A plain ordinary newspaper article is not a primary source.

Nor do I agree that the article in the Globe and Mail is an "op-ed", or otherwise barred from use here.

After waiting a reasonable period of time, if no one can defend this informationectomy, I'll restore the passage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First off the personal attacks need to stop, comment on the article not the editor. Secondly, you have included a ton of non-relevant informatino such as the Farley article. This reference is an opinion article, it is right in the URL and title (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/could-the-toronto-crane-climber-use-thrill-seeking-as-a-tool-for-social-good/article34893962/). Please review MEDRS BEFORE including medical information. As consensus is required to include the information in question as per WP:BOLD please provide a rationale to your references on this. Simple reverting because you don't agree isn't acceptable. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think WP:MEDRS is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a specific passage you think is relevant?
 * No offense, but I don't think the reply, above, is a defense of your excision. Could you please try harder to explain your excision?
 * In this comment you called Frank Farley a mere "reseacher". Excuse me, but isn't he the holder of a named chair, at a highly respected University?  Doesn't that indicate someone important considered him one of the top figures in his field?  WP:RS says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..."  So, hasn't a leading figure in his field chosen to identify a crane-climber as the poster-child for a type of risk-taking personality?  So, if Farley, a leading figure in the study of risk-taking behaviour, comments on crane-climbing, as a risk-taking behaviour, can you explain how that is not relevant to an article on crane-climbing?  Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion articles are not facts nor are opinions articles written about a medical topic by the author of a new medical topic acceptable. Additionally, it isMED unrelated to the topic of crane climbing, just because he said this ONE individual exhibits symptoms of his type T theory does not mea n it belongs here. You are placing undue weight on this individual after it had undergone AFD. My recommendation if we were best friends is to stop with this madness. CommotioCerebri (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit in question. CommotioCerebri was indefinitely blocked, late last year.  So can't participate in a discussion here.


 * Their last comment was incorrect. Farlley wasn't just commenting on Lazo, rather he suggested she was an aexample of a general phenomenon among crane-climbers, which does make it relevant to this article.


 * This article could usefully have similar sections on other climbers. I'll keep my eyes peeled.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe this edit, from an anonymous IP, was made by the individual who used CommotioCerebri. Perhaps, since they are evading their well-deserved indefinite block, I don't have to say the edit summary they offered is nonsense.  It's nonsense.  The talk page shows just the two of us weighed in here.  Their disagreement with me doesn't establish a consensus.   Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * excised the paragraph, again, with an edit summary that said, in part, "A NEWPAPER article is being used to psychoanalyze someone? Not MEDRS compliant."
 * That assertion is quite similar to the assertion of that vandal evading their indefinitely block.
 * Prior to their block I asked CommotioCerebri to be specific as to which passage of MEDRS they thought applied.
 * Since Calton seems to be making an assertion practically identical to the one CommotioCerebri couldn't or wouldn't explain I asked Calton to make use of this talk page to explain it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to be MEDES compliant. If you a hard time understanding this policy then you should refrain from editing in areas that it addresses. Much like your inability to understand BLP. Perhaps  who is an expert on MEDRS can provide you some assistance. 107.161.5.103 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping - I would just say that WP is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS, and the proposed content is just news and not encyclopedic. That is the bigger issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any other handholding you want? 2605:8D80:622:1C4A:D778:6C13:2DFE:AA34 (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To anyone who agrees with my wikistalker that my questions are out of order Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.
 * my wikistalker asked you to weigh in, once before, before the indefinite block they evading here. You declined.
 * You called the excised material "just news". Can I ask how you figure that?  Farley is a very senior psychologist.  He explained why he regarded crane climbing as a specific kind of risk taking behavior.  How is that "news", or rather NOTNEWS?  Thanks!   Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The contested paragraph is about a single event that happened on April 26, 2017. wrt the "type T" thing, Farley himself wrote "My reflections about her are entirely speculative". Our mission here is to summarize accepted knowledge; Farley's self-acknowledged "armchair diagnosis" is not accepted knowledge with respect to this person.  Also he never quite comes out and calls the woman's action "T negative" and the proposed content inaccurately summarizes the source by putting this person's action in the same bucket as a "thrill killer" or someone attracted to ISIS.  The content fails on many grounds. Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)