User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 6

What is a seamonkey?
You removed my post as irrelevant and slightly anoying, so I take it then the source{] works?Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * no. in fact I get a 403 error. piecing back through the URL, this seems to be something hosted on a private server which either has some connection with an unknown university or is trying to appear to have such a connection. at the deepest level I can access it seems to refer to a class syllabus for Dr Marina McIsaac and (presumed graduate student) Katherine Milton at Arizona State, but given the various oddnesses  of it I can't credit it as a serious source.  I actually removed it because I was worried it might be a hacker site of some sort - sorry, I probably should have checked the history to see who posted it first.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Confucianism and Tao
You mentioned that you were interested in material about Confucian views of tao. I am currently in the process of adding some material to the Tao article about both Confucian and Neo-Confucian views. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Edits
Thanks Ludwigs2:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severina123 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick thought to throw in your direction
I don't think that we'll guickly reach an agreement about the overall article (I agree with you that present discussion is largely political in nature, but think that the article should highlight the scientific background first). But I have a thought. Although the current global warming article highlights the science up front, it also has significant sections that focus on the social aspect: Do you have any suggestions about how these more social sections of the article could be reworked or improved? Awickert (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Attributed and expected effects: Economic
 * Responses to global warming
 * Debate and skepticism


 * Sorry to be slow, I've been suffering from a head cold. well, if you want to focus on just those sections, I'd want to turn them around in a big way.  for instance, the first line of the Debate and Skepticism section is entirely inaccurate, since - in fact - it was increased conservative resistance to environmental activism that prompted both the surge in research on global warming (by liberal elements who were trying to find a scientific basis for their political position) and a surge in political debates over the research (by powerful industries that wanted to defuse environmental legislation before it started to impact on profit margins).  that kind of critique would run through all of those sections.  I could go and start some editing in that direction - do you think I should bring it up on the talk page first, or just jump in boldly?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you either: I've had a head-cold too. I'd bring it up on talk first, which will (a) solicit feedback for improvements, (b) alert the regulars to your efforts, and (c) give you a chance to write out some of your ideas before implementing them. Because of the nature of the article, sandboxing will be key for any proposed large change. Awickert (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! Now, Ludwigs2, you should keep working the Discussion, but work out in full detail how you would change the parts you have the time and wherewithal for, and then seek comment.  Don't try to take over the whole article.  Leave anything that's already just fine in place as far as that can be rationalized.  Don't get bogged down by obstructionists either.Julzes (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks, I'll do my best. it's not the first contentious article I've worked on, but I'm learning better techniques all the time, so your advice is helpful.    -- Ludwigs 2  08:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On my contributions (need a neutral opinion)
Happy New Year Ludwig! I have recently find out that an administrator (SJ) has tagged some of my contributions as with "disputable content". As it is custom, and this is a decent and noble community, I replied politely to him explaining my point, and you can check it here talk:Sj under headline "Contributions". I was surprised, but took in good faith, and I'm wondering whether you can check it out and tell me what can be done, or what can I do (if something is truly wrong), to improve. I've been investigating some Italian families of some importance, and had been preparing some other articles, but I'm not sure if I should continue. Will appreciate all your help (and your third party neutral point of view). Regards. AcademieIT (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll have to provide me with a specific edit or set of edits that you are having a problem with - I don't have time to search through your contribution history to figure out where the dispute is. just at a glance, though, you seem to mark all of your edits as minor edits, and that is very bad form.  the only time I mark an  edit as minor is when it's truly insignificant (correcting spelling, adding dropped words, etc).  I'll also note that very long talk page posts are likely to be ignored (I inly skimmed the one you linked to here).  it pays to keep things short and sweet.


 * also, when newish editors have disputes with admins, 99.9% of the time the problem lies with the newish editor. don't get you're hopes up that I'll be solidly in your corner.   -- Ludwigs 2  04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to be on my side, as it has no point, and if you understood it that way I apologize. To make it short: administrator tagged my contributions with "The verifiability of all or part of this article is disputed." His charges are these (in Talk pages):
 * There is no record of this line in my local small library (on vacation), and almost none other than this article online. Could be hearsay; related to other articles with no solid sources. +sj+ 08:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources should be checked for notability and accuracy. It is interesting that there is so little independent record of this prince online. --+sj+ 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * His claims are based on the supposed fact that there is no sufficient internet data about the topics. Anyway, he missed to check Google Books.


 * What you tell me about minor editing you're totally right. As this is a community of decent, helpful people, I am asking you what to do? If you don't have time, it's ok. Regards. AcademieIT (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * in order for me to look at what happened here, you need to provide me with a link to the page in question, or better a link to the particular talk page section where these comments were made (or if you want to get super-sophisticated, give wp:diffs of the page in question. read this link: Simple diff and link guide -- Ludwigs 2  17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ===> Thanks, Ludwigs2. I appreciate your help. All I want is to see if things can be fixed or not, and I wanted your experienced opinion. That's all. I'm not disputing whether the administrator is right or wrong, just want to know what can be done to save the entries (as I put time writing and editing it all, and I have some other articles on other topics to upload but I have to be sure of what I'm doing and how I'm doing it). The last thing I want is to start a feud.
 * The talk pages of the 2 entries in question are [] and []. As there are claims that there are "almost no record of the family online", I can provide you with a few useful links, yes, mainly in Italian, but there's a very interesting recollection on Google Books (that's indisputable evidence), that you can see here 3, which is just a quick search, and here more 4. The books on which I based my research for encyclopaedic purposes you can check at Barnes & Noble, for example, cited at each entry.
 * Now, how can I fix whatever there is wrong, as it is claimed? Thanks so much. AcademieIT (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, these topics are way outside my area of knowledge, so I have no idea whether the edits you made are good edits of bad edits. they seem perfectly acceptable to me (I don't see any of the things I would normally assume were problematic edits), but I really can't judge.


 * That being said, I think this is just part of the normal editing process. you made some edits, SJ (for whatever reason) thought they were worrying and reverted them, now what you need to do is to go to the talk page on the articles and start defending your edits.  say things like "SJ: you reverted these edits I made, but I have this source (list the source) that shows this edit was accurate and that source (list source) that shows that edit was accurate.  be very specific, connect a few of your edits with reliable sources so that SJ can see you're not just fooling around.  no need to go overboard all at once, just outline a handful of sources/edits and  ask him what he thinks about them.  Most likely, once he sees that you're not just editing randomly, he'll undo all or part of his reverts so that you don't have to re-enter them.


 * just think of this as a 'proofing' stage - SJ probably saw relatively stable, relatively minor articles getting a lot of attention and reverted just on suspicion (I might do the same in his shoes). now you just have to prove to him that you're a serious editor using reliable sources, and I'm sure he will be happy to put your changes back in and let you get back to work.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. and stop marking your edits as minor!   -- Ludwigs 2  04:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ludwigs! Learnt my lesson about those minor edits. Now all changes will be reflected on their edit summary. Will follow your suggestions and hope things can be improved for the best in the interest of all. Regards.AcademieIT (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re your report to WP:ANI
I have responded to your amusing report at the noticeboard WP:ANI. PYRRHON  talk   23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks. now if you could only respond to me normally on the article we might get somewhere.   -- Ludwigs 2  23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC
I don't know what to do better with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335906493&oldid=335905917 Will you help me with wording, please? Enhlish is not my first language and I thought I provided links to illustrate what the dispute is. --Destinero (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the dispute is. can you tell me?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute is about using claims not supported by sources which were repeatedly added by 72.224.119.207 (talk). Explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_parenting&diff=335828355&oldid=335820935 --Destinero (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, if that's the issue, an RfC is not really needed - the material is un-(or at least badly)-sourced, so it can be removed on those grounds without need for a lot of outside attention. RfC's are usually for more difficult conflicts.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

my thankyou 2 you
Wiki ian 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you around
Hey there, we have talked in awhile so I thought I'd drop by and just say hello. I was some what surprised to see you at the wiki alert but pleased to see you active. At least I thought you were on a long break from here, I could be wrong. Anyways, nice to see you around, hope you are doing well. Take care, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I just saw your comment there, thanks I needed a smile after reading all of that. It's a mess, so some humor was very much welcomed. Take care and keep up the light humor, it's good for the soul, I think. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, I was there a bit earlier in the week with an editor who had decided I needed a good pummeling, so I was watching the page and thought I'd chip in on that one - real mess. I was on wikibreak for about 6 months, but now I'm back, and much more chipper for the respite.  plus, I seem to have developed a bit of a british thing, but maybe that's because I watched a whole lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes a couple of days ago.


 * it's nice to see you too!   -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dignity
As a neutral observer, it seems that although pyrron is not acting by concensus, he does not plan on doing so. Let it happen, and report it, any edits you revert will be re-reverted, leading to an edit war and the locking of Dignity. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, dignity is currently locked, which (while not a good thing) might at least force some conversation on the talk page. I'm waiting to see if Pyrrhon has anything to say onthe matter, but so far he's been silent.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this on WP:ANI. I've got to say, situations like this, and a general tolerance of behavior against consensus, are a massive disincentive to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been banned a couple of times in the past because I got so frustrated I ended up violating 3RR. In each case my edits were to restore consensus, and eventually (after multiple levels of dispute resolution and noticeboard inquiries) that version prevailed. It's ridiculous that there's little correlation between who's wrong, who's right, and who gets blocked. Sigh.

I'm disappointed with the incredibly weak response from admins; it seems like a postponement of another skirmish until protection ends, and a roadblock to any progress on the article in the meantime. But that's Wikipedia for you. Rvcx (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * eh, it's no real worry. Admins are slow to take action unless they feel there's a pressing need, and I have a bit of a pugnacious reputation so circumspection is probably called for.  What will happen over time is that they will watch and ratchet things up as needed.  If Pyrrhon keeps up his current mode of interaction he'll get progressively more sanctions, and if he settles down and starts to edit cooperatively everything will go back to normal.  Either is good with me.


 * I keep meaning to make a list of the various editing strategies on wikipedia, just for educational purposes, with estimates of their effectiveness, moral turpitude, and frequency of use, along with a list of strategies for overcoming the more noxious ones, but I'm not sure I want to write out (what would assuredly be used as) a blueprint for trying to dominate pages. suffice it to say there are at least six major editing strategies that I've observed, only one of which is really consonant with consensus decision-making.  Wikipedia... gotta love it for what it is, because if you don't you'll go stark raving mad.    -- Ludwigs 2  01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Intermodal freight transport
the TEU link on the infobox leads to a Disambiguation page. i tried fixing the template myself by linking it to Twenty-foot equivalent unit without success, can you help me? it should still say TEU on the infobox but direct you straight to the Twenty-foot equivalent unit page. Wiki ian 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * your fix worked, looks like to me. sometimes when you update templates there's a short delay while the system refreshes the cache.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DR on goatse
Do you want to file the request with the Cabal or should I? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry, I've had my mind on other things, a bit. either way.  if you don't do it, I'll get around to it tomorrow.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have a little bit of spare time coming up, so I'll compose something. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On Taijitu
Gun Powder Ma has a history of using sources liberally. I myself found him misusing a string of sources (he used a couple sources that I happened to have read). He's also tenacious when it comes to making the article what he wants. My advice is to give it up. Because from my experience, he won't. It's best to just forget him and work on something else.

Cheers (talk) 3:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know - this is not the first encounter I've had with him/her. unfortunately, I'm a stickler about misrepresentations, and am just as (to use your polite word) tenacious as he is when it comes down to it.  it will work out.  thanks for the notice, though.  really, I may eventually need to start an RfCU on him.  I don't mind the tenaciousness so much, but the poor sourcing and pov-pushing has got to get tempered somehow.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Grinding an axe, the both of you? A bit pathetic to talk behind one's back, and hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia... I am always providing references for my edits, and I am actually very gentle in my dealings with sensible minds. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GPM, I just answered his question. I know you have my page on your watchlist (since you've posted here before), so this hardly counts as 'behind your back'.  in fact, this is the best place for this kind of discussion, outside of article space.


 * to my mind you border on tendentious editing: you use questionable sources, push minor POVs, and do both with an unnecessary amount of aggression and hostility. I don't have any doubts that I can (under policy) revise taijitu to reduce the prominence of European symbolism - most of the cards are on my side of the table in this debate - what frustrates me is the likelihood that you're going to force me through the process of wikiquette, RfC, ANI, and whatever else is needed to get you to back down and accept a reduced section.  If you were editing for the benefit of the encyclopedia, you'd realize how weak your case really is and you'd work towards a compromise; since you don't, I can only believe that you've got some other goal in mind than encyclopedic writing.  This is not  competition unless you make it one, and I am annoyed by the fact that you consistently do make it one.


 * You are not going to win this debate - seriously, you're not, on pure policy grounds. the only real question is how much effort you are going to force me to go through to make you realize that you're not going to win.  My advice to you is to start editing cooperatively so that we can finish this and get on with other things.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For your information, Gun Powder Ma, I've never used any negative words on you ('tenacious' and 'liberal' is hardly an insult), but merely told Ludwigs that it's better to work on something else. If you want examples were I accused you of anything, you can find it in our arguments in the Turtle Ship article. Thus I hardly consider this as talking behind your back. I also noticed a variety of other articles which you misused references (or straight out lied about them) in which I never bothered to mention. But with all that added on, I went only so far as to accuse you as being "immoral", nothing more. You on the other hand called me "pathetic" just now. Other users also caught on to your misuse of sources as well, and in turn called you far worse things than "tenacious" as I did. Who are you trying to fool? Surely by now you should know that I read some of the "references" which you claimed to have read.
 * But now that I know you're here, I believe that I can stop being so careful with my words and talk a little more about you, yes? From our past history, I've seen that you have a pattern of trying to play down anything Far Eastern, which eventually spilt into every civilization except European ones. Sometimes I actually agree with you at parts, but the "how" you do it simply isn't justifiable. Each time I point this out, you still refuse to compromise even though I have every right to delete everything you put in it. If anyone has the right to reject compromise it's me and others like me. This behavior is getting worse and worse and is bordering on fanatical. Last time I checked providing references that does not claim what you paint really isn't "the spirit of Wikipedia". Gnip (talk) 1:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, having seen the interaction if GunPowderMa an, I appreciate the context a bit more. as far as I can tell, the two of them are opposite sides in some backwater dispute over the superiority of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire, where each of them is trying to gain whatever advantage they can for their favorite bloodthirsty-yet-improtant political entity.  I can guess that this is a semi-scholarly dispute (teeninvestor seems inordinately displeased by the way that western scholarship has tended to ignore the Han Dynasty, and GPM keeps trying to magnify the importance of the Romans - I can only imagine that his vaguely asian-referent username is an oblique reference to that).  but I wish you guys would just Get Over It and restrict yourself to well-documented scholarly sources.  as I keep telling people on wikipedia (god, how many times I've said this in different contexts...) Science Always Gets the Last Word.  Let the science speak; don't try to speak for the science.  whatever is right will come out in due time without wikipedia's aid or assistance, so if you really want to make a difference on the topic, get a degree and write monographs of your own so that I (and other tertiary source losers such as myself) can happily and faithfully report your work as it is accepted by your discipline.


 * sorry if that rambles a bit: scotch runs a distant second in my preferred vices, but it is easier to get at need.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that Rome Han comparison article was quite troublesome, but I left my hand out of that mess. I realized there was a fight over it, but by the time I saw it the entire thing was argued so extensively that only the people who started it could possibly know what's going on. Thus I didn't involve myself. I did involve myself individually with Teeninvestor, quite recently in fact(There are many places where I disagree with Teeninvestor, but unlike Gun Powder Ma I can't verify much of his sources. However, there are numerous times where my sources and those of Teeninvestor's clash). I'm hoping he could be more compromising, or at least lay off calling non-Han people barbarians :p
 * And from a brilliant historian who in my opinion is one step above Herodotus:
 * "To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done, and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. And it is compiled rather for an everlasting possession than to be rehearsed for a prize." (from Thucydides)
 * To me, cross comparing empires do easily lead to superiority egotists, which undoubtly denies oneself the full flavor of history. There is no point only eating from one dish when there's many more out there. One way to study history is by using SiMaQian's approach. Instead of studying the past in a timeline, he organized his writings into bibliographies. Thus, history becomes much more humanistic, almost like a story.

Gnip (talk) 2:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone I said this ...
... but just a quick salute for your gracious responses in the context of the eternal kiss-my-ass-sideways incommensurability of rhetoricians vs philosophers (round 4678). LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah! you might want to wait on that till you see me lose my temper over something. hoooooboyohboy...    -- Ludwigs 2  02:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And especially don't tell them this ...
Hi, again. :-) Coinsider the following reply-rant by an imaginary debater replying to you: Excuse my long absence (blocked for 3 days LoL Note: a follow up to getting blocked for giving $1,000 to Wikipedia, not kidding, anyway), the 100 number is about right. FALACY: The 100 are here "to make an encyclopedia."  NO: The 100 are here to create an environment in which hundreds of thousands of people can make an encyclopedia. Those who run around saying "we're here to make an encyclopedia" are clueless, and history will wash them away, or Wikipedia will fade into dust. (Perhaps you see why I get blocked. LoL) PS "AGF" is bullshit &mdash; Hitler meant well. More useful is Presume Common Sense [PCS]. The 100 number I assume you agree with, since you said that, too. What about "the big idea"? How would you response (just roughly/briefly etc, when/if you have time) Proofreader77 (interact) 10:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * re you mentioned it's really only about 100 people
 * 1,000 who voted in Arbcom,
 * 500 usual suspects which Jimbo considers "the community,"
 * but only about 100 of us who are here all the damn time mucking about.


 * I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but I'll go out on a limb and offer this response: The only claim to fame that the '100 muck-abouters' have is that they are (supposedly) trying to make something that the millions upon millions of potential editors in the world would accept as encyclopedic. to the extent they do that, they are writing an encyclopedia.


 * and history washes everyone away. our lives are but stories written in the sands of time.    -- Ludwigs 2  17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say we disagree on what the "(supposedly)" is. LoL But that is, of course, the big idea. :-) Many thanks. Proofreader77 (interact) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming
I have seen some of your arguments. You are wasting your time. They claim it is only about the "science" and then discuss theory, politics, and predictions. This battle has been fought many times. Not a one of the editors you have to convince will admit that some words (and phrases) have multiple meanings. Those are smart people, they know that you can win arguments by controlling the use of language. By pretending that their use of words is pure and that everyone else is simply POV pushing, they have encouraged (started?) edit wars in many of the related articles. However, to be fair, both sides miss the point. Wikipedia should document what is known, reported, or assumed, not be used to win some argument. Just accept that it is a propaganda page and move on. Q Science (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to tell you; I generally try to assume that people will be reasonable, and I have no problem explaining things to people repeatedly until they understand, even if that takes a while. In other words, I don't share your pessimism or your cynicism (or your impatience), though I do understand that wikipedia editing practices foster all three.


 * I do agree with your second-to-last line, though, and I thought that was what I was aiming for. am I missing it?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I do not have a problem with your edits or with what you are trying to do. It is just that you are not the first to be treated that way. Q Science (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, I know. It's not the first page I've been treated that way on, either.  I keep trying different approaches at cracking this particular psycho-social nut, with varying degrees of success, and I'm learning a lot in the process.  fascinating process, really.  glad you don't object to the point, though.    -- Ludwigs 2  23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GW
I though we were getting somewhere. Well, so much for that. What is your take on Talk:Global warming? Interested in some meta-discussion? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * keep trying, please - you're the most reasonable person I've talked to on that page. and I love meta-discussion.  I should change my username to MrMetaHead.


 * I don't think the talk page is too complex; I think the topic is just contentious. I'm sure that the page history shows a lot of less scientific, politically-driven editors trying to push in right-wing denialist viewpoints, and I imagine that the pro-sciencey editors (who have their own political edge) have developed a program of fighting off those kinds of efforts politically rather than scientifically. The result is a page where no one engages in discussion and everyone is more concerned about defending or attacking than editing.  Article development as siege warfare - anyone not currently inside the walls gets greeted with a pot of boiling oil and a big fat pffft.  Unfortunately, the 'Defenders of the Keep' have decided to restrict the article to something they feel they can effectively defend (the unquestionable empirical data) without realizing that they are debasing the science of it in the process.  unfortunate move...


 * There's nothing direct to do about it, since the discussion is currently running on emotional heat rather than reason. My main plan is to sit on the talk page, refuting all the emotional arguments and reaffirming the reasoned arguments I've given to date, until the current defenders decide it's safe to engage in cooperative editing.  That may take a while, though; there's a lot of reactive energy tied up in this article.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You must feel put off sometimes. What do you think of those pro-sciency editors? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you mean? they're just editors.  most are good people, some are jerks, c'est la vie. scientism is a point of view like any other, and needs to be balanced in an article like any other. The only real problem on this page is that science people have stooped to playing politics, which tends to degrade the value of the scientific perspective.  olr where you asking something else?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean in terms of success and in terms of getting along, that doesn't seem to be happening. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ah... time and patience.  things will work out eventually.    -- Ludwigs 2  03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try another tack
Hi, I've already asked you to stop misrepresenting people who disagree with you of doing so "for the heck of it", or otherwise dismissing or ignoring their arguments and pretending that they have made no substantive criticism.

Here I find you doing it again.

The wording of your proposed alternative has been criticised by various commentators as "[theoretical construct is] a term with such a specialized philosophical meaning [and] has [no] place in the introduction of an article of general interest", and "[the current wording is] a pretty short sentence, but it gets the message across without all the fiddling and scraping employed by the first sentence of the proposed alternative. As for the second sentence in the alternative, I don't know what it's doing there." Another commentator has stated 'I see no "misinformation" in the existing lede.' Another has criticised your proposed wording as "a rhetorical device [that] may go down well in a political debating society, or in a lawyer's speech to the jury, but is not relevant (or normal) in a scientific context."

Now your strategy here seems to be to ignore the criticism and stand by your original proposal. That's not very productive but by itself it wouldn't be problematic. It's when you falsely represent the arguments of others who disagree with you as "obstructionist", that I think most people would perceive a problem.

How about switching tack? Make a concession. Recognise, perhaps that the words "projected continuation" already suggest a theoretical framework, and suggest ways in which any shortfall can be made good within the existing wording. Insisting on your own wording, when it has been widely criticised as obfuscatory, pedantic and misleading, isn't helpful. Attacking and baiting your fellow editors isn't helpful. Try another tack. --TS 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, I've already made (and will continue to make) concessions. For instance, I have said several times on that page that I am not concerned about  the particular language and more than willing to try other wordings, and yet you and others consistently go back to attacking the wording.  Not one single editor who has criticized the wording has offered an alternate wording or acknowledged that there is anything of value in the revision at all.  I do respect you as an editor, but you are as guilty of this as anyone else on this page - you are avoiding the real issue by complaining about superficialities.  why is that?


 * To be frank, I have a valuable and well-reasoned point to make. When others on the page start making concessions to the substance of what I am saying, the stylistic matters will take care of themselves. and the argument will rapidly move forward and be resolved.


 * I get it. I understand this talk page a lot better than you and and the others there do (that's my discipline).  There is no easy road out of the intellectual hole you all have dug yourself into - it's a war zone, and it takes a hell of a lot of work to get people in a war zone to start acting cooperatively and peacefully.  That's too bad for all of us, because I am not likely to give up so long as I'm in the right.  And I am in the right - you know that as well as I do.  so maybe it's time for you to try another tack.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording there at present is fine. It mentions both the trend and the projection (read: inference) that it will continue.  --TS 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 'trend' and 'projection' are elements of theory that are being presented in the article as factual truths, which is a misrepresentation of the scientific material. -- Ludwigs 2  17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're making claims about the article body and not the lede. Do you agree that the word "projected" in the opening sentence clearly and openly implies a scientific inference?  If so then we can move on to discussing the content of the body that may imply factual knowledge rather than inference based on observation and theory. --TS 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that I should start changing language in the article body to reflect GW as a theory? because if you agree that's the right path, then I suggest you bring that issue up on the talk page so we can plan out a set of revisions.  I'd be satisfied with that as an outcome.  addressing it in the lead was (to my mind) the simplest and most direct way to approach the issue, but I am open to other means.


 * but to answer your specific question, no. as I said, the way the term is currently used implies facticity, not a theoretical basis, and readers without the level of scientific acumen that you and I have will easily be misled to think it's an assertion of truth. -- Ludwigs 2  18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On my original point, this comment is very distressing. You are continuing to accuse those who disagree with you of failing to engage with and evaluate your suggestions. Please stop that. There has been an overwhelmingly negative response to those suggestions. Take that on board and move on. --TS 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting - that these five or six editors should be listened to because ill-tempered, emphatic statements outweigh reasoned arguments? Is that the way you think wikipedia should work?  I've made my case through reason, and I'm waiting for someone who is willing to support or oppose it using reason, and I have no regard whatsoever for any other argument style. I know for a fact that WMC is an atmospheric scientist, so I know that he can discuss this as a matter of science and reason.  the fact that he decided to resort to 'shut up and go do something else' type arguments thoroughly deserves a piffle. -- Ludwigs 2  18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that your personal assessment of the value of your arguments has been called into question but you continue to accuse your fellow editors of not addressing your points. As another editor has already remarked during the discussion, I didn't hear that is, when it goes beyond a certain level of acceptable rhetoric and becomes a routine excuse to try to resurrect rejected opinions, regarded as disruptive editing. --TS 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, all I can say to that is that I've had no trouble defending or explaining my arguments when people have tried to address them, but very few people have bothered to try. If you can show me a diff where someone actually addresses my concerns I'd appreciate it.  I'm not accusing anyone of anything - I'm simply stating an observable fact, one which I can back up with diffs if and as necessary.  You are welcome to take me to wikiquette if you think I'm out of line; I stand by my comments and behavior on the page.


 * I would suggest to you that you stop focusing on me as an editor and start focusing on the substantive points I've raised. focusing on me isn't going to get you anywhere, because at the moment I feel confident that I am on the correct side of trying to improve the encyclopedia.  until you demonstrate that my substantive concern is invalid (or until you agree that it is valid) I will continue arguing for it.  ok?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to persuade you of the problematic nature of your extremely repetitive mode of engagement. You cannot fairly say you have not been warned. --TS 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that a threat? -- Ludwigs 2  19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

our cabal
I'm not sure what the rules are for changing comments on cabals but I assume they're similar to talks so just for reference I'm leaving this message to say refactoring my comments with regards to your not seeing WS' comments is cool by me, just incase it comes up and I'm not around to make this point. Cheers,  raseaC talk to me 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ah, thank you. It didn't even occur to me that that might be a problem (since it was my mistake I was correcting), so I'm glad you brought it up.  I'll make a note in the mediator's section about it. -- Ludwigs 2  23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no idea really. At the end of the day it's common sense (seeing as our responses would be redundant without your comment) but I figured that seeing as the discussion has the potential to be nit-picked it's probably best to keep a record of things; you can't be too careful on wiki!  raseaC talk to me 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Ludwig, I notice you have made a few contributions to the global warming article. I tried to give you some history of the article, but it got removed by someone. Basically, climate articles used to attract a varierty of people with different views, but it was a very unequal "fight" because somehow certain people, seemed to be able to work 24/7/365 on the articles and they were clearly being fed inside information and could literally "arrange" for the right papers to appear to support their slant.

It was also very common to see Wikipedia rules being used to ban people - and having experienced how this worked, it was pretty clear to me that there was a team approach attempting to wind up individuals to the point at which they got so frustrated they broke the rules - and miraculously there was always a willing admin just on hand to ban the user.

So, through a combination of banning users, and users simply giving up and "letting them have the rope to hang themselves", the articles were left very much to a small crowd of people, who appear to me to have the feel of those we saw in the climategate emails (no proof - but there's clearly some involvement because they have the same modus operandi).

What I'm trying to say, is that there is a very professional organisation behind the climate articles, and they have all but ousted anyone with a contrary view. This is important for you to realise, because
 * 1) if you don't have the time, skills, and position within Wikipedia you are basically wasting your time (... to be honest I suspect there is high level support in wikipedia for the POV in the articles)
 * 2) even if you do miraculously have the necessary background to write these articles, then given the history, you are not going to get the experienced editors you need to bring in NPOV because they have long since left Wikipedia

This is not intended as a council of dispair, it is my best assessment of the history of these articles, and to be quite serious, I personally just want to see some honesty in the subject and I wish you all the best if that is your intention! 85.210.3.125 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Point noted, and I thank you. unfortunately, this kind of argument does not interest me.  I understand the political facts of wikipedia (better than almost anyone else here, if you want to know the truth), but this kind of speculation has no real use.  sure, it makes everyone feel better to be able to label and identify some 'thing' that's the cause of all problems, but the political reality is always a lot more complex and a lot less nefarious than that.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've not managed to put you off - you clearly are some nutter with a death wish! But seriously, I went through a similar exercise myself and after a month of complete utter nonsense on just one sentence I realised that one side had not the slightest intention of accepting any kind of neutral input to the article (that was a time when I was pro-warming). The thing, is that the same people that obfuscated the editing then are still writing the articles. The thing you have to realise, is that when the climategate emails talk about "changing the definition of peer review to prevent publication" ... they didn't just mean journals, they meant using the same technique on articles on Wikipedia. If you are mad enough to edit global warming, you will quickly realise that everything that is pro-warming is miraculously fast tracked peer reviewed and every other opinion is discounted because it isn't. Honestly, trying to source material for NPOV on global warming, is a bit like trying to source material on the infallability doctrine of the catholic pope - when the only source you can quote is "peer reviewed" catholic journals. 85.210.3.125 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What happens in scientific journals is a matter of sourcing that I have no control over. If the journals are irresponsible enough to fudge data they will eventually fail, because scientists don't like journals they can't trust.


 * The 'climategate' issue is mostly a political matter that has no real impact on the science of global warming. Science is pretty much like any other profession in the world - a pound of effort, a cup of arrogance, and a dash of spite - The main difference being that science always (in the end) has to deal with the physical reality of things.  don't even go there with me.


 * I am not easy to dissuade from what I think is right. If that makes me a 'nutter with a death wish', so be it.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Might want to check-in here WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force for to-do activities to earn brownie points with the aggressive folks acting like expert owners. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems really unlike you, Ludwigs2. I remember working with you on some alternative medicine articles a while back and, while I think the points where we disagreed probably took up more space on the talkpages, my impression of you has generally been that you are reasonable and insightful. I will be the first to admit that the tone of discussion on the climate change pages right now is far from ideal, but I would really appreciate it if you could try a bit more raise the level of discourse rather than adding to the problem. Please take this as simply a friendly comment of surprise and perhaps an indication that your frustration may be getting the better of you - I have no intention of ever taking any direct admin action where you are concerned. There is General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, but I would honestly be surprised if it comes to that. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) (formerly Eldereft) 08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed it as a PA. I'm surprised you didn't, 2/0. Though thinking about it, perhaps you were hoping L would and I've now prevented that. In which case, sorry. In which case, to L: I suggest you remove the whole thing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, you might have a talk with Nigel, as well - it really sucks when the he deliberately misconstrues what I said to that extent (and yes, it has to be deliberate - no one could get from what I said to what he said I said without a whole lot of thought and effort). It serves no real purpose, except that it forces me to go back to step one and re-explain what I was actually saying, which will just draw out the conversation longer and longer.  I'm really not going to be put off by misrepresentation, and I assume that nobody (not even me) wants to listen to me correct that kind of silliness ad nauseum, so it might be for the best...  but either way.


 * sorry I nose-snapped him. I think he thoroughly deserved it, mind you, but it was bad form.  I'll try not to let it happen again.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nigelj's comment to which you were responding was also pointed in somewhat the wrong direction. I have requested that they exercise a little more restraint to keep these discussions more collegial than disputatious. And thank you for trying, I will see you around. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

An idea
As I have thought about the page you created Arguments to avoid in discussions, I got an idea:

One of your main concerns was clutter. The idea I had is as follows:
 * The page would simply be called Arguments to avoid. Simplicity is congruous with WP:KISS.
 * There would be individual sections. One would list arguments to avoid in favor of keeping. Another would list arguments to avoid in favor of deleting. Others would list arguments to avoid in other situations.
 * The lists would all be in chart form
 * It would be in similar format to List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates

Here is a sample chart:

Sebwite (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could work with this, yes. I've actually been mulling over something else, though.  Part of my hope here is to generalize this 'AtA' concept to other talk page situations than yes/no, keep/delete binaries.  for instance, I want to point out that reverting a big addition with an edit summary that says 'rv per NPOV', or responding to a argument on a talk page with 'we've rejected this before. look in the archives' is an insufficient form of argument. it hasn't quite come into focus for me yet, though.  I mean, I know how I'd write that up for an academic audience, but putting it simply and clearly is escaping me at the moment.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am thinking of is as follows:
 * A chart for all the not-so-good "keep" arguments
 * A chart for all the not-so-good "delete" arguments
 * Charts for each of the other types of arguments
 * Anchors for each line of the chart to make shortcuts work
 * I am thinking that eliminating the sample signatures may be a good idea in order to simplify the appearance
 * Keep the older pages active for a while until people can see how well people like this one. If it can be accepted, others can be merged into it.

Sebwite (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I am starting to construct something like this at Arguments to avoid in discussions/construction sandbox Sebwite (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility policy
I'm sorry that an admin was incivil to you. Did you want to email me off-wiki with your concerns, if they are still occuring? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is (relatively) ancient history, and it wasn't an admin I was talking about, just a well-liked editor. If you have any familiarity with pseudoscience issues on wikipedia you could probably make an educated guess who I'm talking about - there's a small group of (what I would call tamed trolls, but others refer to as) experienced editors who follow an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy about driving off "fringe advocates".  I can't fault them entirely, because they do a lot of good productive work, but they gamed a whole lot of editors into getting undeserved indef blocks, and taught me that being mild-mannered, thoughtful and collegial (my normal preference) is a luxury on wikipedia. now I watch for certain signs and behaviors that I've learned to recognize the hard way, and go straight for an intellectual choke-hold when I see them.  sad really... for me, and for anyone who ends up on the receiving end of  my Mr. Hyde side.  my interest in this incivility policy, honestly, is that I'd like to cut that kind of aggressive behavior off at the knees and produce the kind of thoughtful, collegial atmosphere I prefer. my inner cynic tells me that's not going to happen as long as there is weasel room - editors with entitlement issues won't even think twice about abusing loopholes to get their way.  but I can't claim to be detached about the issue.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources
I noticed you were contributing the a debate on primary, secondary and tertiary sources at WT:NOR. Are you aware of the draft separate guideline on PSTS? The idea is that it would allow WP:NOR to concentrate on the NOR aspect of PSTS. The definitions etc. etc. would be in the guideline. Take a look at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Yaris678 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * no, I wasn't aware of that. frankly, I wasn't aware that we had a WT namespace.  I'll take a loot at it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WT is just Wikpedia talk. i.e. talk pages of pages in the Wikipedia name space.  You've been there even if you didn't know about the short cut!  :-)  Yaris678 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - yeah, I figured that out.   -- Ludwigs 2  23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy (but not really)
L2, are you available to continue work? The page is in rather a state and I'd welcome it. Are you having a fraught time? Best of best anyhow. Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * eh, too many irons, too little fire. I'll take a look at it in a bit.  leave a note on the talk page about specific concerns.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you have me do, Kim? I make proposals,..
So you do. But that doesn't help; the GW page isn't short of proposals. But you aren't restricted to the GW page. There are many other climate pages. Most of the folks who have been around for a while tend to be rather skeptical of people who turn up from nowhere and suggest vast changes to the GW page without any track record in actually improving climate articles. Index of climate change articles is a list, if you're short of ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like you're suggesting you've all gotten jaded by the process (which on a contentious topic like global warming is perfectly understandable, if not optimal). I'm not sure what you want me to say about it, though.  to my mind, once editors stop responding to new ideas (even bad new ideas) and start reacting to them the whole situation goes to pot.  New people on the page will either retreat from it at the first volley, or they will feel attacked and start attacking back, neither of which is a good outcome.  I happen to be an unfortunate mix of reasonable and stubborn; I won't generally attack back but I won't generally give up either (not when I feel I have a good cause), and so I get stuck in the middle of these kinds of problems more often than I like.  I'm still considering the various options I have for doing what I think needs to be done with this page.


 * honestly, I could go to other pages, but I'm not sure that would make this particular problem any better. once I start looking at this as a meta-problem I'm probably going to want to restructure the entire cluster of global warming articles (removing POV forks and reorganizing the rest into sensible inter-article relationships); I already feel that urge, but that's just an even bigger headache.  I'd prefer to start small.  and honestly, this is small - I'm not suggesting a 'vast change' of any sort; merely for an explicit an acknowledgement of what is already necessarily present in the article.  (and yes, I understand, there's a resistance to calling it a theory because there's a fear that identifying it as a theory will open the door anti-GW people who want to pov-push other theories in - I get the politics, but I happen to believe that a closer adhesion to scientific principles is the best way to collar the political tripe).


 * sorry: I'm not sure I'm being clear, but I hope you see what I'm saying. -- Ludwigs 2  22:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could go to other pages, but I'm not sure that would make this particular problem any better. - I disagree; it would. People would trust you more, and would be more inclined to take you seriously. As I've said - the GW page is not short of proposals for change. What those proposals have in common is that they come from people with no track record of understanding the issue. Try actually working with the pages and you'll come to understand them better. Attempting a top-down re-write without that understanding is doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'll start looking around a bit then, if you think that will improve my standing. but I don't think I'm ready to give up on this point on GW quite yet.  it bothers me to leave what I see as an essential error standing intact on the page.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't think offhand of any errors on the page. If you've identified any in talk, alas it has got buried under the weight of chatter there. I invite you to clearly and succinctly restate here what you consider to be an "error" William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is simple, and something I've explained repeatedly throughout the argument. The article takes a well-established and empirically supported scientific theory about climate change and does its darn best to represent that theory as an observable fact. It's right there in the first sentence "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation".  This is just bad science.  it should read something like (and this is just a quick rewrite of that sentence, so excuse the clumsiness in language): "Global warming is the theory that observed increases in the average temperature of [...] represent a continuing climate trend."  The actual, empirically measured increases in temperature are ambiguous outside of a theoretical framework that organizes them.


 * Oh I see. yes I've seen you say that: no it is not an essential error, IMO, and I don't think you've convinced anyone else (the dittoheads (I'm not calling you one) will support anything that looks like watering down GW, so don't mistake their support for agreement). That in my view is just fiddly with the wording; it doesn't affect the science at all. But I suspect we're not going to agree on that point. If you see any scientific errors, please point them out William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, it is a factual scientific error; that's not really in question. It's the kind of mistake that your average college science student could expect to get marked down for. and while it would be nice if I could convince people, I don't actually expect that (expecting to convince people of things they are not open to hearing is an error made by zealots, newbs, and sociologists).  I don't want or need support or agreement, not from you or from the people you seem to dislike.  I'm holding out for a simple, civil, reasonable discussion of the matter, with an eye to possible compromises or consensual changes.  do you think that's possible?


 * I don't think we can yet attempt to discuss the matter, because you are rushing ahead too fast - you have not yet convinced anyone that there is any matter to discuss. You say it is a simple factual error, and oddly you say that's not really in question. Well, of course, it is in question. I say that there is no problem. How are you going to convinve me that the error exists? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmm... I'm supposed to convince people before we have a discussion on the matter?  that strikes me as an odd problem in metaphysics: how would I accomplish that? actually, I already know the answer to that (there's really only one thing you could mean by it), but it's a useful point for you to consider.


 * I've made my case succinctly a couple of times (now archived, I think). The only person who bothered to respond with anything more than (the moral equivalent of) 'shut up and go away' had nothing to say after I explained the scientific issue.  I could take that as a sign that he agreed with me, but I think it's more likely (given later comments) that he was stubbornly refusing to accept good reasoning that went against his personal interests. sad, but unfortunately common on wikipedia.  when I say that it is a factual scientific error, I mean exactly that - it is a misrepresentation of the science that any scientist would recognize as a misrepresentation (though, of course, most would consider it to be a minor and easily remedied mistake rather than a major problem).  You are a scientist (so I gather) and I have noticed that to date you have avoided addressing the methodological point directly, but instead have tried to render the conversation moot before it gets to an actual discussion.  I make no speculations beyond that, and I don't really need an explanation of it, but I have noticed.  would you care to discuss that methodological point now?  If so, let's do it over on the article talk page.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to convince people before we have a discussion on the matter?  - yes: you need to convince people that there is an issue to discuss. I've said that already. I've also said that as far as I'm concerned it is an issue of no import, a mere fiddling with words, which is why I haven't bothered to engage with it. I'm not a scientist, though I used to be. A glance at my page would have shown you that; why do I need to waste both our time correcting you over easily verified trivia? If you wish to discuss the methodological point, I am prepared to listen. I recommend against doing so at the GW talk page; discussion there usually gets hijacked by interjections from fools; here at least there comments can simply be removed. It would be best to create a new section just for you and I to discuss this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I only meant that you've had scientific training, not that you were currently practicing. I rarely look at user pages, sorry; I prefer to take each editor completely at face value when I interact with them.  as for the other suggestion, let me sit with that a bit.  I do understand your concern, but if you're serious about discussing the matter properly, then it really belongs in article talk space, not in user space.  and heaven knows that page could use a positive model of consensus discussions.  let me weigh the options...  -- Ludwigs 2  20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, that first sentence is simply wrong. That might be the "scientific" definition of "Global Warming", but that is definitely NOT the way the phrase is used in the US press on either side of the issue. In fact, that is not the way the phrase is used in most wikipedia articles. An interesting challenge might be to get some outside parties to locate a few dozen uses of that phrase in various articles and then write definitions based on the context. I suspect that there will be at least 4 different (but somewhat related) definitions, none matching that first sentence. Q Science (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I've been saving the reference approach until an actual discussion gets started (partly because I'm lazy, and partly because I hate using research combatively). However, please note that this article is heavily argued to be covering the scientific aspects of GW.  If it were covering the political/journalistic side, I'd see your point more, but since it's ostensibly about the science, it really ought to cover the science properly from a scientific perspective.  You're not going to find many scientists (at least none who aren't already tenured) who are willing to risk their reputations saying that GW is a fact - what they will inevitably say is that all available research supports a theory that the world is undergoing progressive warming.  very different statements that need to be reflected in the article.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet most of that article is theory and politics. Q Science (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * which is a good part of the reason I'm arguing on that page - inconsistency bugs me. but as I said, I can see this article being a nice summary of the actual research; I don't think we need to get into the politics here (at least currently - that might change in the future) so long as the science is fairly and accurately represented. -- Ludwigs 2  18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have got bored with the idea of discussing this, which is disappointing. Drop me a note if you ever become interested again William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not bored; I just have a life outside of wikipedia (sporadically, at least). I'll be back to it, no hurry, no worry.  maybe tomorrow.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

methodology discussion
ok, I've decided that it's worth the effort to discuss it off the talk page, if only to satisfy our mutual curiosity. THe basic methodological point I'm raising revolves around the nature of empirical observations. an observation of an effect is not in itself meaningful; it only takes on meaning within a theoretical structure. so, for instance, I have no doubts that the increases in global temperature are valid empirical measurements, but that fact is conceptually trivial. The interesting and important questions which that fact raise center on the causal mechanisms behind that increase and the possibility that the increase reflects an ongoing trend. but these are questions of theory: one side develops one theory, another side develops another theory, a third develops a... and then more empirical evidence is sought out to give weight to one theory and make another seem less reasonable.


 * OK, I got as far as here. apologies for breaking up your comment but I disagree sufficiently that there is no point progressing. I don't disagree with your essential point: the way theory and observations mix. Without a good theory, we would have no reason to be particularly interested in the way light reflected off a certain column of mercury happened to conincide with light reflected off nearby scratches on the glass which coud be interepreted as a rading of temperature. Or, indeed, why signals received at what we call a satellite groundstation could be interpreted as messages from a satellite which is informing us that its radiometers have recieved certain signals which when processed through yet more algorithms can be interpreted as a temperature measurement of a certain layer of the atmosphere.


 * But all this is going far far too far into the metaphysics of theory to be of any interest to the GW page. We're not going to patiently explain to people observation theory. So I think your ideas are just in the wrong place William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, to an extent you're right: this is my explanation to you of why we need to discuss theory on the GW page, not what I would expect to appear on the page. All the page itself needs to do is acknowledge the theoretical basis of GW.  if it doesn't do that, then it is drastically misleading readers by asserting that a theory is a fact.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see on this page is that a lot of editors try to present matters of scientific theory as though they were actual facts, and that only serves to weaken the theory itself. when we stick to reporting only empirical observations, two bad things start to happen: first, people start to import theory in under various guises (because as I said, the interesting and important points are all theoretical), and so you'll get these weaselly constructions such as "Instead, global warming is expected to cause changes in the overall distribution and intensity of events..." (where they actually mean "Instead, the theory of global warming predicts changes in the overall distribution and intensity of events..."). second, this gives global warming skeptics (to use what is apparently your terminology ) the grounds to complain, because if you don't address the topic as a scientific theory, then any theory that purports to explain the observations seems superficially reasonable. the only way to properly present something like global warming is as the scientific theory that best explains the observable evidence; that's not only accurate scientifically, it also automatically puts other theories in their proper NPOV prominence (as minor, semi-disproven theories on the same topic). win/win as far as I'm concerned. your thoughts?