Talk:NASA Astrobiology Institute/Archive 1

NASA Astrobiolgy
Why doesn't the main NASA Astrobiolgy group have a separate page as well as the seperate deprtments of said group. This is like having an article for Texas but not the USA or California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.214.198 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Established
NAI was established in 1998. This should be placed somewhere in the article to emphasize that the institute is a relatively recent organization. There was no good place to insert this fact in the current article, so I'm stating it here for now. Citation is the "About" page on the NAI website (http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/about/about_nai.cfm#astrobiology).
 * This has been taken care of with the most recent edit to the major article. Sri.dhyana (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

COI, etc.
Several good-faith editors with COIs have been working on this. As a result, it's a NPOV-violating mess. I will try to clean it up when I have a chance, but it's not acceptable in its current form. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to an independent evaluation of the NAI
here is a link to an independent evaluation of the NAI: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12071 Dscalice (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)daniella scalice

Fixed?
hi all, i removed a bunch of non-neutral sounding stuff and hopefully wikipedia admins will see fit to remove some of the labels on our page??? hope so - we want to do this right! also inserted a reference to an independent review of the NAI. thanks! Dscalice (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)daniella scalice

Lack of third party sources
This article is still solely cited to the topic's own website and the report of its review committee. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is appropriately sourced to its own web page per the sourcing guidelines pertaining to the use of sources about a biographical subject, and it has a source authored by the United States National Research Council.  Please find something constructive to do with your spare time, as this obviously isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLLOCKS! (i) WP:SELFPUB clearly states "the article is not based primarily on such sources" as a requirement. (ii) The NRC FUNDS the NASA Astrobiology Institute ("This study is based on work supported by the Contract NASW-01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" -- frontmatter of the report) -- this makes it an unambiguously "affiliated with the subject". Please stop removing legitimate tags -- this is widely considered to be vandalism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The small sample of secondary sources in the further reading section shows that the information in the article is not based on such sources, even though such sources are appropriate for this stub. The page history shows that you have been tendentiously disrupting this article with your unilateral redirects and tag bombing, and your failure to respond to at least two prior queries about your edits on the redirect target.  Please stop disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BOLLOCKS! Further readings sections are not references -- as they are not cited for the article's contents. If this material contains significant independent coverage then, by all means, cite a significant amount of existing/new material to it, rendering the tag superfluous. But please DO NOT remove the tag until you have done so. And please 'cease and desist posting your lengthy, WP:AGF&WP:NPA-violative rants on my user talk. Further attempts to (re)post them there will be reported as WP:HARASS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, for the avoidance of doubt, citation solely for the year of founding isn't significant material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, you are disrupting this article. There isn't a single letter of prose or source in question or in doubt, and your presence here is entirely unconstructive.  I am in the process of helping a new user craft this article.  You are welcome to help, however if you are only here to add unnecessary tags that are neither needed nor required then I must ask you to take your concerns elsewhere.  The sources in the further reading section are in the process of being merged into the main body, and also serve to support the sources already in use.  As a stub, this article needs work, however, it does not need a "primary source" maintenance tag of any kind, as the secondary sources already support the material in full.  If this isn't making sense to you, feel free to ask someone you trust for help.  Maintenance tags are used to alert users that a problem needs fixing.  As it stands, there is no problem, and at least two editors beside yourself are already working on it.  The fact that the page history shows a repeated pattern of unilateral redirects by you, tells me that you have a personal problem with this topic that is beyond the scope of this discussion.  Please try to put your personal beliefs aside when you edit Wikipedia.  We are here to help editors and help write articles.  It is very, very simple.  Please do one or both of those.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of disruption
So take your vacuous accusations, your equally vacuous demands, and have a big fat WP:TROUT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NOR states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." With the exception of the date of formation, the article is based entirely on primary sources. Pointing out violation of policy is not "disruption".
 * 2) primarysources states "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." Again, with the exception of the date of formation, the article is based entirely on primary, affiliated sources. Placing a tag on an article, where the article squarely meets the tag's message, is not "disruption".
 * 3) As you yourself admit, this article "needs work" -- placing a tag noting exactly what work is needed is neither "unnecessary" nor disruption.
 * 4) I generally add to articles in areas where I have access to sources and a good context of understanding of them -- most frequentlyin the subject of creationism, and the history thereof. This does not however mean that I am excluded from placing tags in articles in other areas, where they fall well below Wikipedia policy.
 * 5) *But in any case, I would be loathe to accept the "welcome" to do so by an editor who falsely accuses me of disruption -- and in doing so violates WP:AGF.
 * Hrafn, what you have written above is complete and total nonsense, and tells me you just don't get it. To respond, there isn't any OR in this article, nor was there any OR in this article at any time in the past; the primary sources are used appropriately and correctly (and supported by secondary sources in the further reading section); "this article needs work" refers to what all stubs need, including expansion, addition of images, etc; tag bombing is not helpful nor desired when editors are collaborating, especially when one editor is working closely with a new editor who has requested help.  Please get in the habit of making constructive edits to Wikipedia.  This means working closely with other editors, new or old, to improve articles and to share skills.  It does not mean repeatedly and unilaterally redirecting articles without discussion, ignoring requests for discussion, or waging a tag bombing campaign when editors are trying to improve a stub article in good faith.  You also falsely accused me of vandalism and placed a warning on my talk page.  Do you really think that was needed?  Please get in the habit of listening to the concerns raised by other editors and addressing them in the future.  Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would conclude by pointing out that you have presented NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this article does not meet the criteria for a primarysources tag, when it CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY contains an excess of "primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NOR explicitly states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This article is based, almost exclusively, on primary sources. This means that it is in violation of this policy. This in turn means:
 * 2) *Your claim that "there isn't any OR in this article, nor was there any OR in this article at any time in the past" is thus a non sequitor.
 * 3) *Additionally, your claim that "the primary sources are used appropriately and correctly" is patently false because of this violation.
 * 4) *Your claim that " what you have written above is complete and total nonsense" is thus unsubstantiated.
 * 5) Unless cited for specific content, sources in "further reading" sections don't support anything in the article. They are just sources that an article's reader can read for further information on the topic.
 * 6) Contrary to your shrill demands:
 * 7) I am under no obligation to add to any specific article, just because you tell me to.
 * 8) I am under no prohibition from placing legitimate tags on an article, just because I don't add to it.
 * Hrafn, you are repeating yourself in a tendentious, disruptive manner. I'm afraid you are on the wrong website.  To remind you, this is Wikipedia, where we research topics, write articles based on reliable sources, and collaborate with other editors to research, write, and improve articles.  You appear to be under the assumption that this is Disruptapedia, where we unilaterally redirect articles without discussion, where we ignore discussion about such redirects, and where we repeatedly tag bomb articles with maintenance tags, even when they do not need the tags.  The primary and secondary sources are used appropriately, and the sources in the further reading section show that the topic is already supported.  Furthermore, there is no OR as you claim.  I would suggest that you escalate your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard and stop disrupting this talk page.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have no policy basis for any of your accusations, and demands (nor have you made even an attempt to demonstrate any policy basis), I would suggest that it is you who should "stop disrupting this talk page. Thanks." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No Viriditas, it is you who is tendentiously misreading policy (e.g. pretending that WP:NOR does not have a section on "primary, secondary and tertiary sources"). And I will keep repeatedly citing RELEVANT POLICY until such time as you demonstrate that you understand what that policy means, in the context of this article.
 * 2) "To remind you..." "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." -- WP:NOR
 * 3) You are indulging in unsubstantiated slurs ("Disruptapedia"), with no basis in policy.
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a project where we WP:BOLDly redirect articles, pervasively in violation of policy (WP:NOR, in this instance), to their parent topics.
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a project where we tag articles that need improvement, indicating what improvement is needed.
 * No, this article is not "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", so "primary and secondary sources are" not "used appropriately".
 * 1) "...and the sources in the further reading section show that the topic is already supported." -- argumentum ad nauseam & already debunked above.
 * No, I DID NOT claim that this article contains OR. I stated that it is in violation of WP:NOR. Kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my statements -- doing so is in violation of WP:TALK.
 * Like I said above, please escalate this problem and file a report on your disruptive behavior. Best to turn yourself in before you do something even worse, but don't be too hard on yourself.  You're welcome to collaborate at any time by doing the research and contributing content.  Be well. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that I have repeatedly denied that my behaviour is disruptive, nor have you provided any policy basis for your claim, your request that I "file a report on [my alleged] disruptive behavior" is nonsensical. I should report myself for something I have denied doing, and which you have provided no evidence that I've done? You are welcome to add sufficient secondary-sourced information to balance out the surfeit of primary-sourced information, so that a tag is no longer necessary. Reproducing the NAI team list, is hardly an example of this. I will continue to clean up, and tag, this article, as necessary. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I previously explained, no tags are necessary. You are welcome to work on the article or not, but since you seem to have put yourself in charge of the "tag bomb squadron", I'm afraid that I must inform you that the squadron has been deactivated and the troops have been sent home for the holidays.  Hopefully, with this down time, you will now have more free time to help improve the article.  Sorry about that, but orders are orders.  Enjoy your vacation. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that your explanations have no basis in policy, but rather are mere argument by assertion that "the primary and secondary sources are used appropriately" I think it is perfectly acceptable not to accept your explanations. And I would point out that your leader in the 'WP:OWNERs maintenance-tag removal squadron' was recently blocked for his antics. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, you say? I'm so sorry, but I've never heard of him.  Is he a friend of yours?  BTW, if you don't like primary sources, perhaps you should stop adding them.  It's going to look a bit funny on ANI with you complaining about the sources you added.  Feel free to keep trying to make constructive edits, though.  It is much appreciated.  BTW, the list of teams that was in the article before you changed it, was a list of current teams. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) Colonel Warden is perhaps the most notorious member of the 'WP:OWNERs maintenance-tag removal squadron' -- subject of multiple WP:ANI complaints, and recently blocked for his disruption. (ii) I merely completed, and gave citations for, the incomplete uncited list you added. I would be quite happy to see its complete removal until such time as sufficient secondary material is added to balance it, per WP:NOR -- but if it remains in the article, it should be complete and sourced. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "complete" article on Wikipedia, although that word is sometimes used to describe a FA, it is not true for all topics, as some are static and others dynamic. In any case, I'm not entirely clear on why you are requesting the removal of NAI sources.  Could you explain?  There is nothing wrong with using them. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never stated that there is "such [a] thing as a 'complete' article on Wikipedia".
 * "In any case, I'm not entirely clear on why you are requesting the removal of NAI sources." WP:BOLLOCKS! I have stated the reason behind this over and over: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." -- WP:NOR
 * An article, such as this one, that is, in the majority, sourced to primary sources is in violation of this policy. One way to alleviate this is to remove some of the less-central primary-sourced information (i.e. the list) until such time as more secondary information eventuates.
 * I am getting more than a little tired of your disruptive WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on this point.
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are confused about our sourcing policies and guidelines. Everything in the article is and always has been based on reliable, published secondary sources, and the primary sources used belong to the subject and are entirely acceptable for use.  Please feel free to bring this up on a noticeboard.  I think you don't understand the difference between a topic that is based on secondary sources, and an article that uses primary sources.  That's what seems to be giving you trouble.  Not to worry, your confusion is quite common because the sourcing policies and guidelines only become clear after you apply them.  Hopefully, this will be a good learning experience for you. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is you who are confused. Both the NAI website, and the NRC report, are primary sources -- they are "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view" (WP:PRIMARY). What policy basis have you for thinking otherwise? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how you might think that, but the topic is based on a plethora of secondary sources, and looking at the literature, anyone can see this as plain as day. However, the article was created by a new editor, who did not know this, and attempted to create the stub with not just primary sources, but by copy and pasting from the NASA sites. Instead of helping him learn the ropes, you redirected the stub several times, and ignored his requests for clarification.  I saw his second request and replied to it, in the process, defending your initial edits.  However, as I looked into this, I see that you failed to educate a new user on our best practices, and instead you chose to redirect and tag war, setting not only a bad example, but missing the entire point of our encyclopedia.  So, I came here to help.  Recently, you seem to have caught on, and you've begun collaborating and contributing in a constructive manner, and I thank you for that.  But, you need to be a bit more flexible in your approach, especially with new users.  The fact that I've had to deal with this from you as long-term users, tells me that you still haven't quite figured it out.  We're not here to tag war or argue over policies and guidelines.  We are here to work on articles and help new editors become good editors.  The article is no longer based on a few sources added by a new user.  However, you could have helped the user at any time, by doing the research and setting a good example.  But, you are still here arguing about things that no longer have the slightest relevance or importance.  It's really time to move on, don't you think? You are demonstrating an unhealthy obsession that amounts to wasting time and generating heat rather than light. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on sources for this article
[RfC withdrawn by initiator: the article has now been improved to an extent that the question no longer applies. If Viriditas had done this in the first place instead of throwing a hissy fit over a primarysources tag for an article based entirely on primary sources, this could have been avoided. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ]

Are the NASA Astrobiology Institute website and the report of the United States National Research Council (which funds its research through "Contract NASW-01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration") primary sources for this article, per WP:NOR. Is the fact that this article is, in the majority, sourced to these two sources problematical, per that policy? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrafn's complaint derives from a stub version created by a new user, User:Dbigwood, who restored this article after User:Hrafn strangely redirected it to astrobiology, with the edit summary, "Redirect stub lacking third-party sourcing to parent topic (where it gets a couple of mentions". That edit summary is completely false as a quick perusal of the literature shows.  The new user queried about this strange redirect several times, with no answer by Hrafn.   After investigating this problem and helping the new user, I have begun rewriting the article, and adding sources from the literature.  For some unknown reason, Hrafn is completely obsessed with this topic, forcing him to tag bomb it over and over again in the middle of trying to fix it.  I've asked Hrafn to stop with the disruption and to help improve the article.  From what I can tell, Hrafn refuses to acknowledge that this topic is covered by a multitude of reliable  secondary sources, and I've been adding them to the further reading section as a first pass, and then merging them into the article as sources as a second pass.  Now for the most bizarre part:  After I had spent time adding secondary sources to the article, and reducing the use of primary sources to only 2 references out of 7, Hrafn began adding the very primary sources he opposed even though the information he sourced was already supported by secondary sources in the article.  Clearly, he did this to dishonestly argue as he does above, that "this article is, in the majority, sourced to these two sources".  This is the most bizarre behavior I have witnessed in years and reflects very poorly on Hrafn.  It is perfectly acceptable to use information from NASA's Astrobiology Institute in this article, and neither the topic nor the subject is solely based on it, contrary to what Hrafn continues to claim. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I reject Viriditas' vitriolic description of events, as both tendentious and inaccurate. I would further point out that this RfC is in direct response to Viriditas' repeated demands that I "escalate" this issue. Viriditas has never even attempted to provide any policy basis whatsoever for their accusations and demands. In any case, this vitriol is irrelevant to the two questions I presented in this RfC: are these primary sources, and is their acting as the cited sources for the majority of the article compliant with WP:NOR? I have already heard Viriditas' lengthy, policy-free responses to these questions above, so would really like to hear from somebody else on this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with any of the sources, and the page history shows you have some kind of deep-seated, personal bias against the very existence of this article. That's a bit strange, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to incorporate material from the sources in the further reading section. I don't think the topics notability is legitimately in question and there are quite clearly multiple secondary sources in use already. As for the dispute and the behavior of the involved I think Hrafn's behavior was clearly out of line and bordering on disruption: when editors are making legitimate efforts at improving an article the correct behavior in a collaborative encyclopedia is to help them, not to plant extra obstacles for them or act like an angry mastodon.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that the article does not in fact appear to be based in major part on the two primary sources cited, as can be seen by a quick review of the references and further reading sections of the article itself, I can't see how this RfC can lead to any helpful conclusions or developments. Perhaps focussing on actually improving the article, instead of trumping up potential imaginary bugbears as barriers to proceeding such as this RfC, would be a productive approach? siafu (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was at the time this RfC was started. Given that at this time Viriditas was claiming them to be secondary sources, I felt that an RfC was the logical next step. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The links you provide do not at all support the statements you are making. The 11/26 version of the page, which you've linked to, has many more than two sources, and is in fact the version I read before making my post above (notice it's also dated 11/26).  Given that, the talk page edit diff (also 11/26) you linked does not at all claim that the two sources are secondary sources, but notes the presence of several secondary sources, and states that the primary sources in question are relevant; NASA publications are always relevant as to what NASA is up to, how they are organized, and what their mission statement is.  After considering your response, I am still not at all convinced that this RfC was warranted, and I continue to believe that the proper response should have been the identification of new sources to fill the "gap", or at least an attempt to do so.  siafu (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are in error. (i) I did not claim that all the article was cited to these two sources, only the majority of it (a statement that I still hold to be correct). (ii) The diff claims that "Everything in the article is and always has been based on reliable, published secondary sources..." -- the material cited to the NAI website/NRC report are part of that "everything", so it certainly appears that they were being claimed as secondary sources. (iii) Whether you think that the RfC was warranted (and Viriditas sure as hell wanted some sort of escalation) is now moot. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently not moot enough?


 * (i) The version of the article you linked has 9 separate references, two of which are cited twice, yielding 11 total. Of those 11, 4 are to the documents you are challenging (including one which is counted twice, really it's 3 out of 9); this is in addition to the 7 non-NASA sources cited in the "further reading" section.  Your claim that the majority of the article was cited to the two particular sources you question was not true then, and continues to be untrue.  It is furthermore irrelevant-- unless you are challenging the reliability of NASA publications in general, which would be a discussion to take up at WP:RSN, despite being absurd, and not with an RfC.


 * (ii)The diff in fact includes Viriditas suggesting using the noticeboard (i.e., WP:RSN) not RfC, and your claim that it suggests that the primary sources in question are somehow secondary sources is stretching the truth at best, and more likely pathologically pursuing a tenuous interpretation, and I can't possibly see how such an interpretation could lead you to a productive line of discussion. The problem remains that if you feel that there is a dearth of sources, the solution is to go and find sources.


 * (iii)If you believe somebody wanted something in particular, it would have been vastly more productive to allow them to pursue that. Your belief about someone else's desires was, in this case, clearly in error.


 * The result of filing an RfC in a situation like this, whether the problem is the use of primary sources or some mistrust in their reliability, rather than, say, a concern about WP:SYNTH or WP:OR resulting from

the overuse of primary sources, is that the problem escalates into a larger-scale fight with clearly defined sides. My guess, personally, is that this was your inclination, since you seem to bent on convincing those who came by in this RfC of Viriditas lack of good faith (hint: accusing someone of throwing a "hissy fit" is not endearing). If you had, say, spent fifteen minutes with google to find the sources you wanted, challenged the troublesome sources, or even alerted members of a related wikiproject, the results would have been more productive than the hours that have apparently been spent on this RfC. siafu (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)