User talk:EcoHealth57

Note to Steamer 405:

If you read the post as it is, it is not so much about ecosystem health, as it is about bringing up critiques that have long been debated in peer reviewed literature and set to rest. It is ludicrous to dismiss the half dozen journals today that are devoted to the Ecosystem health concept, the hundreds of programs in prestigious universities that have programs in ecosystem health, the tens of thousands of researchers around the world that are working in this field, the hundreds of thousands of policy makers that employ this concept, and allow to stand an article that cites only critical literature, rather than the voluminous and far more prevalent literature in support of the concept. The article is one of extreme bias, and misinformation. It does not serve your readers well.

Ecohealth57

Note to EcoHealth 57: Thank you for your contributions to the ecosystem health page.

You seem to think that discussion of criticisms of ecosystem health caters to some fringe element that can be ignored or dismissed. To the contrary, there is significant serious mainstream research attempting to address questions of ecosystem functional outcomes and it would be an extreme bias to not report challenges to ecosystem health definitions.

For example, Science magazine, 15 June, 2012, page 1393:

"When it comes to ecosystems there is no agreement on what it means to be healthy. On page 1438 of this issue, Woodward et al. show that different conclusions on the health of stream ecosystems can be reached depending on which combinations of metrics are used to assess them."

Would you please ensure that your content conforms to the rules of Wikipedia or it will be removed:

1. Verifiability Rule: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

2. No original thought (which means no editorializing): “Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”

Note that the original ecosystem health article conveys the work of others, properly cited; it is not an opinion piece by the Wikipedia authors as you seem to think.

3. Maintain neutral point of view: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Note that the original ecosystem health article drew attention to both the reported utility and reported limitations of the concept. It is utterly inappropriate for a Wikipedia author to advocate one point of view.

4. No personal attacks: “Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.”

This includes your statements such as “Whoever proposed this statement fails to recognize,” “warped perception,” “The initial drafter of this piece (likely ********) does not understand the concept of ecosystem health and his rants are...”

Steamer405 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The original article prior to my partial edit of today (AU 13 2015 -- the first and only intervention I have ever made on Wiki!) appears to be written by one now less than  a handful of 'ecosystem health' bashers. The edit consisted of removing most of the misleading/misinterpreted content, but leaving all original references as they were, and in the concluding section, flagging the obvious bias in the statements. The original piece was a classic example of irresponsible anonymous writing.

What bothers me about Wikipedia is that its greatest strength (open access, and capacity for people to update and correct previous versions) can be used by some (and hopefully this is a tiny proportion of your multitude of users!) to mislead and misinform, proffering minority views as the dominant perspective on a given topic or field. Without a more careful review of what goes in, Wikipedia is on shaky grounds. It is for that very reason, as you presumably are aware, that in the realm of academic standards students and researchers are strongly advised not to use Wikipedia as their main source of information or data.

There simply is no question today of the validity of the field of ecosystem health--as attested by a plethora of academic and research programs and thousands of peer-reviewed articles, and even entire journals, devoted to it, as well as by the uptake in a myriad policy and on-the-ground initiatives by governments and international organizations worldwide. Furthermore, the objections raised in the original article are "red herrings", many of which have already been roundly refuted in the leading peer-reviewed literature (for example, in an exchange in Trends in Research in Ecology and Evolution by Rapport, McMichael and Costanza, TREE  14, 2, February 1999, pp 69-70.). The logic and arguments of those who "see red" when they encounter the very concept of the health of our biosphere and its ecosystems being heavily damaged by human activity are essentially on the same plane as the logic and arguments of those who claim that drinking Coca Cola is good for your health, or that smoking tobacco is not harmful.

David J. Rapport