User talk:Chondrite/Archive01

SqueakBox 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You must use WP:CITE style to challange a WP:CITE or else it is just a POV that violates WP:NOR
Yours Errors:
 * If you read the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Taxonomy (Perform word search for style) you will see that I have explicity stated that WP:CITE is a style and not a policy. You are in error suggesting I do not know this.
 * You are in error when you proposed Google search engines hits to constitute a scientific majority the article can cite in the same discussion section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Taxonomy (Perform word search for Google). You must cite sources not search engine hits. See WP:CITE.
 * Being uncivil means not deleting and changing the whole article that hundreds of people have worked on before you edited it. It also means not deleting citations. It also means not abusing wikipedia in general.
 * It is your POV that the citations are a straw man. There are countless citations refuting your POV in the article. In order to refute a WP:CITE you must use the same style in the discussion by supplying a WP:CITE to refute the cite. Your POV about what is a verifiable cite or not is just a POV until you use the same style. Which is why your POV edits will be reverted back to the original. (Simonapro 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

This is certainly not Wikipedia policy, nor is it stated or implied as part of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the style of citations.

It is logical fallacy, specifically it is an appeal to lack of proof of the negative. See Burden of proof (logical fallacy) and note that "Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven." This is also not wikipedia policy (although WP:Verify does address burden of evidence) but rather a logical requirement of valid debate.

Consider the claim "Sea-otters are fish." One is not likely to find a source that states specifically: "Sea-otters are not fish.1" Failure to find a source that directly contradicts the claim is not proof that the claim is true. The claim must be proven. Note also that numerous web pages include the exact phrase "Sea otters are fish," but that none of these is evidence supporting the claim.

The current incorrect usage of the term landrace in the Cannabis article is the product of another type of logical fallacy.

Consider: All cats are mammals Some mammals are dogs Therefore, all cats are dogs

Or, more simply: All dogs are mammals Therefore, all mammals are dogs

The justification for the claim in the article is: Premise 1:    All (varieties of C. sativa) are (of the species C. sativa); tautology Premise 2:    Some (varieties of C. sativa) are (described as landraces); supported by reference Conclusion 1: Therefore, all (varieties of C. sativa) are (described as landraces);  invalid Conclusion 2: Therefore, (the species C. sativa) is (a landrace);  true Iff conclusion 1 is true.

Thus, the source cited does not support the claim of the article. The source verifies the premise but not the conclusion. The statement in the article is therefore a (trivial) case of WP:OR. In this talk page the source has been and continues to be misrepresented as directly supporting the claim in the article.

See also WP:CITE.

Notes: 1. and in fact a google search for this exact term returns a single result, which states: "Sea otters are not fish eaters and therefore do not directly compete with fisherman for fish." Chondrite 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You refuse to address that you where wrong about my understanding of wikipolicy.
 * The article does not say all species are landrace. It never did. You assert that here.
 * You are contradicted by the sources. (Simonapro 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Violation of WP:V
WP:CON refutes your claim that the dispute tags may be removed when consensus is reached among editors of the article that the disputed points have been satisfactorily addressed.’’ Again read – Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus’’ You are using dispute tags in violation of WP:V. (Simonapro 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC))


 * You are in the rather bizarre position of disputing that the content is disputed. It clearly is. Consensus has not been reached.  Please allow some time for other editors to comment and for a consensus to be reached. Chondrite 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags and Images and being Civil and respecting the article Cannabis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonapro#Removal_of_dispute_tags_from_Cannabis I have to laugh at the way you upload this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Stop_hand.svg/30px-Stop_hand.svg.png image from a wikipolicy page and stick it on my talk page and then add 3 tags to the Cannabis article like you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis&oldid=78830749#Species. I think that kind of artwork is uncivil. Do you by any chance have an axe to grind with me because from what I can tell you are a brand new user and you are not helping anyone by being this uncivil. On IRC I just asked and someone says an admin should be notified. I would tend to agree if you keep doing this. Can you be civil? Can you discuss things before you change them? (Simonapro 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC))


 * It's a substituted warning template.


 * As previously explained, I am making good faith efforts to improve articles in the Cannabis category, and related articles.


 * Please do request attention from an admin, it is very much needed.


 * Every proposed change has been discussed at great length, and in a very civil manner.


 * I am following the steps in WP:DR.


 * The current step is to "disengage for a while," which I am attempting to do. I will not edit the article at Cannabis until the current disputes are resolved.  Having the dispute tags on the article brings the dispute to the attention of editors who might not normally look at the page and should help to resolve the dispute faster.
 * The next step is mediation, which is also needed.


 * Much time and effort has been expended in this edit war, and it is not constructive. We could both make much better use of our time improving the Cannabis articles and other articles.
 * Please
 * acknowledge that the content at Cannabis is disputed, regardless of whether you feel that the dispute is warranted
 * allow some time for other editors to comment
 * allow a consensus to develop
 * follow the process at WP:DR
 * so that we can move forward.


 * As a side note, when you some time, please have a look at these two featured articless about plants for some ideas about how to improve Cannabis and related articles:
 * Banksia brownii
 * Saffron (see also History of Saffron, and Trade and usage of saffron, which are also featured articles).
 * Chondrite 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

AMA Case
Hi, I'm going to be your advocate. Addhoc 22:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I ask you to mark up the current version of the article using inline tags. This would be helpful in highlighting the problem areas. Thanks, Addhoc 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Addhoc. Thanks for taking the case.  Inline markup has been applied to the article .  Please also note that Cannabis reproduction was POV forked    without discussion, justified by WP:CIV .   See also .   Thank you Chondrite 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Updated markup -- Chondrite 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, could I suggest you now leave a note on the talk page explaining that you intend to remove the tagged sentences. Then I'd suggest waiting 24 hours before removing them. Addhoc 12:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, and done. Also . Thanks Chondrite 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Addhoc 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you any advice regarding what, if anything, should be done about Cannabis reproduction? My thought is to merge it back into Cannabis for now, with spinout pending discussion and development of a suitable summary for the main article.  Neither  nor have received comment or objection. Thanks, Chondrite 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, that sounds ok, I would comment there is nothing stopping you reintroducing information about cannabis reproduction into the cannabis article without having a strawpoll. You could just set up a new section, indicate and copy the information accross. However, I would suggest removing the totally disputed tags first. In the longer term, you could set up either a merge proposal or list for deletion.Addhoc 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Reverted, leaving redirect "R with possibilities". Chondrite 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could also I ask you for some help in explaining WP:NPOV? I have attempted this several times, apparently to no effect.  Most recently:    .  Thanks, Chondrite 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I also request comment on this reversion of constructive edits to maintain non-nuetral POV?  --Chondrite 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but could I suggest you avoid describing Simonapro's reverts as vandalism. Addhoc 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, on reviewing the policy I do see that NPOV violatons are excepted. Prior instance involved two removals of dispute tags in a 24 hour period, which explicity is vandalism.


 * Have you any comment regarding reversion of constructive edits to maintain a personal POV?


 * I will be on wikibreak for the next week and will be unable to respond to talk page comments during that period.


 * -- Chondrite 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I think that the issues central to this AMA case have been satisfactorily resolved. Unless you think it should remain open, I will add the followup information to the case within a day or two. Thanks, Chondrite 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Addhoc 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolving sticking points on Cannabis without NPOV violations
I think now it is time to say that the article is probably is good enough condition to warrent removal of the dispute tags as per the discussion here in your AMA case. I believe I have settled the Small argument with notable reference to his single species orientation. To class Hillig as either a postgraduate is actually a violation of wikipolicy. You can request it and I will show you. Hillig is still an expert within his field of research. Contrary to your statement that his quote was a NPOV violation well there is a most difficult problem because you are factually trying to argument that Hillig is wrong. This is an NPOV violation unless you can WP:CITE sources that directly contradict Hillig by name and paper otherwise it is original research on your behalf and wikipolicy strictly forbids it. I believe your Small model as per reference is best suited to the start of the article and has been given notice along with a new modern reference to speciation and genotype.

I accepted your apology for calling me a vandal after strictly asking for a new page that used WP:CIV standards. I think that was not progressive and feel that your apology should also contain some sort of action on your behalf to ahere to the AMA case arrangement of:


 * Removing the dispute tags.
 * Before adding the reproduction section hold a strawpoll.
 * Re-establish a new article called Cannabis reproduction without any merger.
 * Consult before merging on that discussion page using strawpoll results.
 * Build a consensus on the Cannabis reproduction section with a synopsis for layman's reading the main article.

Please consider this one of my lasts statements on these matters. They should be done with the futher arrangement of adhering to WP:CIV closely. There is no reason why there should not be progress after this. I will caution against reverts and ask that everyone considering monitoring a static instance after the above conditions are met. We should specialize and only developing the article based on specialized consensus. This could take months on years but it will be worth it. Good luck. (Simonapro 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Could I clarify that you have misunderstood WP:V in regard to your statement "unless you can WP:CITE sources that directly contradict Hillig by name and paper otherwise it is original research on your behalf and wikipolicy strictly forbids it". You appear to be suggesting the burden of proof is on those who are seeking the removal of material. However, according to WP:V the burden of proof is always on those editors who are seeking material to be included. Finally, I have no idea what "ahere to the AMA case arrangement" is supposed to imply. Addhoc 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article content has been varified using WP:CITE style. A counterargument must also use WP:CITE style if one exists. That avoids NPOV violations but if a cite is disputed then a counterargument can balance a dispute. Addhoc how do you intend to resolve the disputed content on the article? Does there need to be a dispute tag? (Simonapro 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Your arguments are complete and utter nonsense. "The article content has been varified using WP:CITE style" is entirely meaningless. "A counterargument must also use WP:CITE style if one exists" is not supported by any policy document. "That avoids NPOV violations but if a cite is disputed then a counterargument can balance a dispute" is again, entirely meaningless. Addhoc 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. WP:CITE style is how to use references for a wikipedia article. Since the citation verify the content then why is there a dispute tag? (Simonapro 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Ok, according to WP:V 'the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". Addhoc 17:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think once the source material is good then there is not cause to remove it. So why the dispute tags? (Simonapro 17:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Cannabis
Thanks for all the hard work you are doing on this article, don't be discouraged. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this nice comment, it is very much appreciated :) Chondrite 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see he is still at it. He is trying to set up a vote, I suggest you skip the vote and continue discussing in word form. The vote is not binding, and may result in less discussion not more. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for contributing a 'third opinion' on the Augustus John edits. Much appreciated. JNW 20:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was happy to offer an opinion. Thank you for undertaking the important task of external link cleanup.  Bold is good! BOLD, revert, discuss cycle seems to be working well in this case. -- Chondrite 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help
I am putting up a Need help section for you here to altert something to help you read WP:RS.
 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources. I hope that they can explain it to you so that you will understand it better. Thanks for your time. (Simonapro 06:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Thank you for the suggestion. Could I suggest that you review WP:RS and WP:RS.  It has not been established that Green has any scientific credentials, and Green's books are popular works.  That the publisher explictly seeks to publish works of "the fringe" does not lend credibility.  -- Chondrite 08:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, lots of people write books on the subject, I was thinking of it once, but there was too much competition. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice
I notice that Simonapro has the habit of repeating arguments that have already been addressed by you in the past. You have been very diligent in addressing his concerns.

However, simply repeating the same argument over and over should be discouraged. My advice when a user repeats an argument that has already been addressed, would be to provide diffs of older responses from you instead of repeating what you have already said. Ask him politely to make new arguments instead of repeating what is already stated. The idea behind this method is to encourage the user to bring in new evidence/information instead of repeating oneself. The ultimate goal of course being to find the correct answer.

This is of course simply my take on the matter. We all handle these situations differently. I have used this technique in the past and it has succeeded and failed to move the discussion forward, though generally succeeds. You seem to be handling things very well, so do what you think is best. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the excellent advice. I have tried to be diligent (and patient) in addressing Simonapro's arguments and concerns, but I agree that repetition is not conducive to forward progress. Chondrite 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)