User talk:Viriditas/Archive 28

Message for Petrarchan47
User:Petrarchan47, you should be very careful on Talk:March Against Monsanto, as a13ean and IRWolfie and others are playing fast and loose with the facts, often twisting them. For example, look at a13ean and IRWolfie's hypocritical defense of the explicit opinion piece by Jon Entine, with IRWolfie making the claim that an opinion piece by Entine should be used! As you may well know, Etine is a huge promoter of GMO's who is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank that has worked very, very hard to undermine the medical and scientific evidence supporting environmental policies for decades, often with the help of corporate funding by the polluters who would be most impacted by environmental legislation. There are obvious conflicts of interest at work with AEI working hand in hand with GMO lobbyists to promote their products. This is neither science nor skepticism, so look very carefully at the people a13ean and IRWolfie are quoting, as they are less than reliable sources. These are the same people and organizations who are behind climate change denial. Their strategy is to delay, deny, and defend. And for what reason? Because this is their legacy on "safety". The real question at hand is why is this company still allowed to run a business? If any individual operated a company like this, they would find themselves in jail. Yet these guys are running the government agencies that are supposed to regulate their businesses and protect the public health. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I miss the part where I have made any edit with respect to this ref. This is twice that you've mistakenly accused me of making making a change that I have not actually done. a13ean (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been harassing the editors on that talk page for citing opinion pieces while ignoring the fact that User:IRWolfie- cited an opinion piece by Jon Entine on the talk page, and used it to make an argument about the protest. Which is odd, because IRWolfie wrote on another page, "Stop thinking of this as "Pro-GM" vs "Anti-GM" or some such, it is not a slant to describe reality." An opinion piece by pro-GMO advocate Jon Entine is most certainly not reality, and his organization (AEI) is about as anti-science as you can get.  Sorry guys, the jig is up. You are promoting neither science, skepticism, nor reality.  Will the real fringe theorists please stand up?  I think Monsanto's record on "safety" speaks for itself.  Asking us to take it on faith that their products are safe based on their proven history in this area is quite possibly the most fringe idea I've ever heard. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I could care less if he cites an opinion article on a talk page. I care about creating a neutral article with reliable sources.  I think this whole situation is particularly amusing since this is the first time I've run into you at an article where I believe our private views on the issues have not aligned.  However, I have never agreed with your methods.  a13ean (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Monsanto's record on "safety" speaks for itself. Asking us to take it on faith that their products are safe based on their proven history in this area is quite possibly the most fringe idea I've ever heard. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our personal feelings on this are immaterial to the article; lots of researchers have spent a long time looking into safety of the GMO foods currently on the market, and they came to the conclusion that there is no reason to doubt their safety.  I have no complaints about the way their business practices are portrayed in the article.  I, for example, think General_Electric could probably stand to be several times as long given the length of the article.  a13ean (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think if there is any real effort to prove there is no pro-GMO team on Wiki, those efforts are being squashed by the edits of a few very active folks buzzing around the March article.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I edit a lot of different controversial topics, so I'm used to accusations of being a shill; but if you want to be taken seriously, and if you want to get along with other editors, it would be a good idea to abandon such conspiracy theories. bobrayner (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, you're missing the point by a mile. IRWolfie was citing a pro-Monsanto shill who worked for the pro-Monsanto shilling outfit called AEI. And a13ean has been supporting IRWolfie.  As for conspiracies, Monsanto & Co. have been accused of conspiracies from day one, and anyone who questions their work in academia or even in the media is soon found terminated, without a job.  The conspiracy, in this case, is real, and the regulatory authority of the FDA, EPA, and USDA have all been compromised.  Whenever a Monsanto product is shown to be dangerous, a former Monsanto consultant or executive employed at a U.S. government agency will downplay the danger. These are the same names and players that were previously involved in the tobacco controversy and who are still working on climate change denial and delaying climate remediation from occurring.  It's not a conspiracy theory when the conspiracy is real and well documented. Conway & Oreskes have covered this in spades and we even have coverage on the Monsanto & Fumento controversy as the tip of the iceberg.  Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course, that there are several editors who oppose the position taken by Petrarchan47. I might even agree with the argument that off-wiki, Monsanto have done some bad stuff in the past. But to merge the two together into one long screed, whilst waving away my objection against being lumped into some pro-monsanto cabal of editors on-wiki... well, that's part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 * I have long respected you as an editor on many different topics; I hope that our disagreement on this particular topic won't undermine that. bobrayner (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My reply clearly shows that I did not merge the two, but separated them in an explicit manner ("As for conspiracies"). The opposing editors are hypocritically defending opinion pieces composed by pro-Monsanto shills while  criticizing the use of anti-GMO opinion pieces and news articles by other editors. That's not a conspiracy, but a lack of good judgment.  And the continued use of "fringe" maintenance tags is just wrong.  Monsanto's safety record is horrendous, and questioning the safety of their products (and their claims) is not "fringe", it's the very essence of skepticism. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Monsanto is fairly evil but it does not mean that GMO is unsafe, nor does it mean there where 2 million protesters that the March against Monsanto claims but rather far less (which is what I was using that source for). From his wiki page, Jon Entine is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute as well as George Mason University. How you get from there to claiming he is a shill is not apparent. Don't let your hatred of corporations get in the way. That you think this is about Monsanto, rather than the insertion of fringe science is missing the point. Nearly the only topics on wikipedia that I edit are related to fringe science, and the misrepresentation of science. Sometimes these are politically sensitive in the US: climate change denialists, GMO scaremongering, Nuclear science scaremongering, evolution denial etc. If you want to make claims about safety of GMO, then use scientific sources, otherwise I'm not interested, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're wrong on every point. 1) Entine is a pro-GMO shill for AEI, a group that has been promoting fringe science for some time, and is known for "promoting the rollback of environmental, health, safety, and labor protections" and shilling for Monsanto's products while promoting fringe science on DDT.  You clearly don't understand the first thing about fringe science, nor do you have any idea what you are talking about. The fact that you rely on known fringe sources like Entine speaks volumes about your agenda.  That you've turned Monsanto's disastrous environmental record and false claims about safety into an alleged "hatred of corporations" only goes to show that you will say and do anything to try and score points.  Your specious "this is politically sensitive" argument was taken straight out of Entine's playbook for shills, as the politicization of these issues has come directly from people like Entine and his handlers. The article in question is about the March Against Monsanto, and Wikipedia's editors are required to represent the views of the marchers with reliable secondary sources.  You can fight that all you want, and you can continue to make false claims about other editors and their positions, but your arguments are completely transparent and without any merit.  The burden of proof rests on Monsanto to demonstrate that their products are safe, not the protesters who demand mandatory labeling and consumer choice.  The marketplace has spoken. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response
Just to make it clear that I'm happy to have a discussion with you, as long as you follow AGF and CIVIL. With regards to being more specific, I was hoping that you would identify the specific fallacious statements and how they are fallacious. If there are as many as you say, start with a few of them. Note that the WP:RS guideline is essentially a requirement to use (IMO legitimate) arguments from authority, but I'm still interested in the others.

In your last reply you also added a couple of additional claims. A similar idea applies; if I don't know the sequence of thoughts and inferences that led you from observation (aka evidence) to conclusion, I can't determine whether you have valid arguments. But if you present them (backed up by RS where applicable, of course), then I will try my best to consider them neutrally.

I will remove this message to respect your talk page blanking. Feel free to restore it if you wish to respond. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(Added: I also made a couple of small changes in response to your "trust" comment; let me know what you think.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Buster7
User:Buster7, thank you for helping Petrarchan47. Your kindness and support will not be forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Her determination is exemplary. And I understand getting so wound-up in my WikiWorld that it effects my Real World health. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Buster7, I have found an obsolete spelling on your use page. Search for the word "develope" under the "WikiWorld Membership Statement" section.  The "e" was dropped a century ago.  Are you the Comte de Saint Germain? :) Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am discovered. Actually, I am Count Jean de Tromp, son of Bart van Brugge. I would be in your debt should you choose to refrain from declaring this news in the public square. TRA! ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW...This is an ingenious, engenious great way of using the new notification program to discreetly contact another editor. ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Thargor Orlando

 * Right now, we have a bit of an undue weight situation where Thom Hartmann's claim that the media ignored the protest is the key point in the section, but does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press, especially in the United States. Has anyone found a counterbalance to this?

User:Thargor Orlando, that's not we use the term "undue weight". The claim that the media ignored the protest is properly attributed to Thom Hartmann. There is no "undue weight situation", nor do we require a counterbalance to any claim to provide NPOV; that's a common mistake. Further, your comment that Hartmann's claim "does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press" makes absolutely no sense. Why and how would Hartmann's claim that the media failed to cover the protests be reflected by the media that failed to cover the protests?? If the media didn't cover the extensive protests, then their lack of coverage demonstrates his point! And if you took a moment out of your day to do the most basic of research, you would discover that newspapers throughout the U.S. have published letters from their readers asking why their papers didn't cover their local protests. You aren't actually commenting about something WP:BEFORE doing the research are you? Please take a moment to actually review the NPOV policy and look at the strange claims you are making. Hartmann is a mainstream source, and his radio show is broadcast around the world in 100 countries. And as a matter of fact, Hartmann's claim was echoed by the mainstream media, you just have failed to do the necessary research. Joseph Bachman wrote a 600-word story in his bi-monthly column for the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune covering the same points as Hartmann. There are many more. To summarize, there is no undue weight situation here and Hartmann's material is used appropriately. If you are going to complain about the NPOV policy and our sources, at the very least, learn how we use NPOV and try to find out what the sources actually say on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are completely incorrect. We are not at all required to give publicity to fringe theories or false claims.  We should remove the Hartmann claim based on factual inaccuracy alone, but I'm trying to find a compromise.  There is heavy evidence of news coverage throughout. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are completely wrong. We are required to write articles about our topics using the best sources on the subject, representing the most prominent views.  Hartmann is a notable and prominent source, and as editors we don't remove any claims we personally feel are "factually incorrect", we represent those claims using good sources. Your interpretation of NPOV is wrong.  There are no fringe theories or fringe claims in the above statement, nor does this topic cover any fringe theories or claims.  Further, your misapplication of our guideline on fringe theories does not take precedence or supplant our policies on verifiability and NPOV.  Your personal, pet theories on GMO belong to you, and you need to stop letting your personal beliefs interfere with this subject.  What you consider "factually incorrect" should be kept to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that the media didn't cover the march is both factually incorrect and a fringe theory. WP:V does not require us to use all sources, and WP:NPOV does not require us to give undue weight to nonsense theories like Hartmann's.  On this issue, you're completely wrong.  Sorry. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The opinion that the media didn't cover the march is attributable to the claimants per V and NPOV, and is supported by numerous sources indicating a lack of coverage beyond one story by AP. Larger papers in metropolitan areas did not cover protests in their area, and letters to the editors in these towns were besieged.  You would have known that if you did the most basic research on the subject instead of shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing about and arguing from ignorance.  Furthermore,  Hartmann's opinion is notable and prominent, and supported by other sources like Bachman.  Again, you would have known this if you did the research first before talking nonsense.  There is nothing "fringe" here at all, and your continued misuse of this term demonstrates that you don't understand what the word means or how we use it. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The opinion exists and is expressed by noteworthy people, yes. Thus, it should probably be included with the proper context per WP:FRINGE.  Wikipedia cannot become some sort of breeding ground for anti-corporate activists, nor any other interest group. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thargor Orlando, you are confused about what FRINGE is and how it is used. I suggest you raise this issue at the fringe noticeboard so you can be corrected as to the error of your ways.  Just because you personally disagree with a source doesn't make it FRINGE.  There is no "proper context" for Hartmann and Bachman's opinions other than "reception" or "media coverage".  And there is nothing "anti-corporate" about anything they say.  I don't even like Hartmann, and I find his radio show annoying.  You need to learn to separate your personal beliefs from writing about a subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made no statement about my personal beliefs, I specifically do not state them on purpose. The issue is solely the fringe viewpoints in the article.  If it cannot be dealt with on the talk page as editing continues, then we can absolutely bring it up to a relevant noticeboard.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You just stated your personal beliefs about anti-corporate activists. There are no fringe viewpoints in the article nor can you cite me a single example of a single fringe viewpoint.  That's why I've accused you of deliberately disrupting the article as editorial consensus through discussion and recent editing has found it acceptable to remove the tag.  You added the tag because you personally felt it should be restored.  Do you see the problem?  Now, list the fringe viewpoints here in your reply.  If you can't, then I will ask you to remove the fringe tag immediately. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the discussion at the talk page of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is strength. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for DGG

 * I think there's sufficient new coverage to justify an article. But the article should be about the protest as such, not about genetically modified foods. Our articles on he subject provide enough coverage. With that done, the article need carry no fringe label &there is no need to consider whether the opposition to genetically modified foods is fringe.

User:DGG, I really don't understand your comment. How could a protest against GMOs ("March Against Monsanto") not cover information about GMOs from both a background perspective (reasons for the protest) and in a description of the platform of issues under protest? I have used Zotero to collect all of the sources on this subject so I am quite familiar with what the sources say and the issues under discussion. Exactly what part of this article is considered "fringe" under our Fringe theories guideline? I can see no part that is covered by it, and the overzealous editors who are repeatedly adding the fringe tag either don't understand how we use the tag or are deliberately using it in a disruptive manner. The labeling of GMO's is not a "fringe" topic. A discussion about the safety risks of GMO's is not a "fringe" topic. And an article about a protest against Monsanto is not a "fringe" topic. There is nothing "fringe" here at all, and we cite reliable secondary sources about the protests and the primary claims by the protesters per policy; none of these things require a "fringe" tag of any kind. What we have here is a deliberate case of intentional disruption by User:IRWolfie- and others, who appear to be violating multiple policies and guidelines in order to push their pro-GMO POV. Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination. These questions form the basis for the entire protest movement against Monsanto, a company which has a long, sordid history of lying to the pubic about their products and for lobbying and colluding with government regulatory agencies to thwart public policy. There is nothing "fringe" here at all, this is documented historical fact, supported by thousands of reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The background is covered adequately by a link to our article on them, possibly with the mention of specific Monsanto products and links to the articles on them. As for fringe, in the   discussion, people argued over whether the topic of whether the harmfulness of GMO was fringe. I wouldn't call it that myself, but my point was that the refocussing of the article would avoid the entire issue. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, we are talking about a different kind of background. The background I am referring to is about the protests themselves and their platform.  This includes the following:
 * Monsanto must meet consumer demand for health, safety, and labeling of GMO products. Protesters are concerned with the unknown side effects of GMO foods, pesticide use, and control of the food supply by a single corporation who is actively lobbying against labeling laws to prevent consumer choice in the marketplace.
 * Protesters demand that governments recognize reputable mainstream surveys that show that more than 90% of consumers support labeling laws and that democratic governments act on the will of the electorate
 * Protesters are concerned that political lobbying by Monsanto threatens democratic institutions and regulatory bodies who are tasked with protecting public health by the electorate
 * Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false. According to protesters, Monsanto's products have a history of human and ecological disaster, involving omission, fraud, evasion, and pollution.  Based on this history, protesters question Monsanto's claims about GMO safety, and protesters have asked for evidence proving Monsanto's products are safe.  To date, protesters observe that there are no long term human studies demonstrating GMO safety, nor has any regulatory agency asked for one.
 * Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. This includes unelected appointees like, Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto executive now at the FDA. Protesters want the revolving door to close; Monsanto executives and consultants who leave Monsanto to work for the EPA, FDA, and the USDA, often create regulatory policies that benefit Monsanto and harm consumer choice and food safety.
 * Protesters want governments to stop protecting Monsanto with legislation like the Monsanto Protection Act against the will of the electorate. Protesters want government to protect its citizens and act as a watchdog, not protect corporations and limit their liability.  If Monsanto believes their GMOs are safe, shouldn't they stand behind their product with confidence?
 * Protesters want all governments to focus their efforts on sustainable agriculture, and to lessen their reliance on conventional agriculture and GMOs
 * DGG, none of these issues are "fringe" in any way, shape or form. They are the essential, core issues targeted by the protesters, and they must be covered in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're going to cover the GMO science, the article will have to state that the scientific consensus is one of safety for GMO foods. I don't see any evidence that you want that, instead pushing a fringe theory regarding the claims of the protesters as fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "GMO science" in the above, there is simply good source coverage of the reasons behind the protests and the article must cover them. Your claim that I am "pushing a fringe theory regarding the claims of the protesters as fact" demonstrates that you still don't understand how we write Wikipedia articles.  The claims of the protesters are considered verifiable facts, and we cover these facts with good reliable sources.  You are totally confused.  Do you even know which website you are editing? This isn't monsanto.com.  Your interpretation of a guideline on "fringe" theories does not supersede our policies on verifiability and NPOV.  Finally, your edit here is evidence of deliberate disruption.  There is nothing on the talk page or in the current article indicating anything "fringe" of any kind.  I'm looking forward to bringing your edits to the attention of the wider community for closer scrutiny and analysis as it appears that you are waging a campaign of  intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are blocked for edit warring, and you are sitting on your talk page trying to argue with people with your unreliable sources and while accusing them of being shills, meanwhile you are trying to direct people the way who agree with your POV. And you are talking about campaigns? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, you have been promoting GMO shills like Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute, and making false claim after false claim. All of the claims listed above are found in reliable secondary sources about the March Against Monsanto, an article that you and:Thargor Orlando have been intentionally disrupting with false claims of "fringe theories", using your unique interpretation of a guideline that does not have any impact on her policies on verifiability and NPOV, both of which demand that we cover the topic and attribute these verifiable claims to the protesters.  No amount of fallacious arguments ("You are blocked for edit warring, so everything you say is wrong!") will change the facts. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice fake quote. You blanked your page before I could respond last time. You did not establish Entine was a shill. You noted that he worked for AEI, but you didn't establish that they were receiving money from Monsanto. Rather you made lots of speculation and threw a lot of dirt. Then you went and then in direct contradiction to your own advice, you relied on material from utterly skewed sources like the CRIIGEN president. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you clearly do not understand what you read at all! That would go a long way explaining why you make these ridiculous comments.  It's not a "fake" quote it's an example of your usual fallacious argumentation  Entine is a biotech shill for AEI, this is not up for discussion nor do I have to "prove" it; all you need to do is look at the evidence, which of course you will never do because you don't do any research here or write any articles.  All you do is go from article to article yelling "fringe, fringe, fringe" at anyone who will bother to listen to you.  As for CRIIGEN, I have not "relied" on any material from any skewed sources in any article on Wikipedia at any time.  You not only don't understand what you read, but you obviously don't understand the difference between a talk page and an encyclopedia article.  Begone pest, you're not wanted here. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You relied on it here, to make your points. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My "point" is that you don't understand basic English. Go away now. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll note that my indent is not replying to your laundry list above, but as a general reply to what's above it that isn't indented. The reciting of the claims of the protesters are facts, yes.  What they are stating is fringe science unsupported by the available science, which needs to be reflected, full stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, these verifiable facts about what the protesters claim are fully supported by the sources, regardless of what you think about them, full stop. Per V and NPOV we add them to the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you presenting that evidence at the talk page of the article once your vacation is over. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you looking for evidence for, Thargor Orlando? You can cut the bullshit now, no need to maintain appearances.  I'm well aware of your contribution history.  No amount of evidence will convince you of anything. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're aware of my history, then you're aware of my desire for solid sources and eliminating fringe viewpoints. If you consider the opinions of those involved with the March to be on the side of science, you'll need some significant evidence to overcome the scientific consensus on the matter.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give me examples of your best work, preferably in the GA or FA class. There is no scientific consensus on the long term impacts of GMO's on human health, because no such study has ever been done, and the positions of the protesters has no bearing on any consensus.  We cite the reliable secondary sources that support their reasons for protesting and we represent it faithfully and accurately.  That's how Wikipedia works. Their concerns about GMOs are well represented in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have stated is simply false and is a fringe viewpoint, so we cannot include them in the article without context. I'm sorry.  We can discuss further at the article if need be once your block is up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I have stated is simply true, and since I've collected every single article about the March Against Monsanto protests and have them in front of me in a Zotero database collection, I am speaking from knowledge and experience. There is nothing "fringe" about what I've said here.  Please stop using the word "fringe" because you are clearly using it in a way that it was not intended to be used.  You cannot demonstrate any such "fringe" viewpoint here because none has been offered. To repeat, there is no scientific consensus on the long term impacts of GMO's on human health, because no such study has ever been done.  If one was done, you could cite the study.  You cannot cite the study because it does not exist.  The scientific literature is full of scholarly articles about the health risks of GMOs to humans, animals, and agriculture.  There is nothing "fringe" here at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. Secondary source analyzing 17 such long term publicly funded studies. You've avoided the scientific literature like a plague, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, the only nonsense here is your own. You clearly do not understand basic English, hence the problem you have understanding what you read.  The link you offer does not study human health in any way, nor is it even a study.  It's a paper that looks at past data from long-term animal feeding studies.  It didn't actually study anything and it has nothing to do with human health.  Please stop commenting on my talk page until you learn to read English. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Nightphoenix90
User:Nightphoenix90, you recently added Category:Flora of North America to plants found in the U.S. state of Hawaii. However, Hawaii is not geographically located on the North American continent nor do the majority of its flora originate from that continent. On the other hand, Hawaii is a political entity that is part of the United States, the majority of which is found in North America. Until 2011, our Wikipedia article on North America made this clear. However, in June 2011, an editor by the name of User:Northamerica1000 confused this issue by adding Hawaii to a section on the Geology of North America without sources. Please notice, that unlike this editor, our main article on the Geology of North America does not include Hawaii. More to the point, according to Dieter Mueller-Dombois, the majority of tropical vascular plants in Hawaii are Indo-Malayan and temperate plants are Australian, not North American. Mueller-Dombois writes that "the most successful invasions came from the southwest in spite of the greater distance to major landmasses in that direction". In other words, most plants in Hawaii did not come from North America.  Because Hawaii is not part of the geographical region known as the North American continent and because the majority of its flora do not originate from that continent, please revert your addition of Category:Flora of North America to all Hawaii-related flora. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation requested
Need Dieter Mueller-Dombois translated into English and created at Dieter Mueller-Dombois. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Message for Aircorn
User:Aircorn, you recently added this statement to March Against Monsanto:

"Aicia Maluafiti, executive director of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association responded to the march by saying that '...the scientific consensus about their [genetically engineered crops] safety is overwhelming.'"

Aircorn, The "Hawaii Crop Improvement Association" is a old lobbying front group established to deflect criticism away from products made by Dow AgroScience, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Syngenta and BASF, and to redirect the criticism on the critics themselves, generally relying on tu quoque, ad hominem, and other lobbying tactics. They are not a scientific authority on anything having to do GMOs, and their arguments have been debunked dozens of times. I really don't understand why this was added to the article. It's pure propaganda, nothing more. We have plenty of expert sources who dispute the lobbying efforts and propaganda, yet we don't see them in the article.

"Hector Valenzuela, a vegetable crops extension specialist with UH-Manoa, said concerns over genetic engineering are warranted. While a supporter of genetic research, he believes research is moving too fast before all long-term effects can be studied. 'We know that genes also interact with other genes in ways that we don’t understand,”' he said. It’s also difficult, Valenzuela said, to track any potential impacts since, without labeling requirements for food products with transgenic ingredients, it’s hard to determine how much of a modified crop an individual has consumed."

There is nothing "fringe" about these concerns. The fact remains that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs because it has never been studied on humans and there are no long term human studies required by any regulatory agency. Concerns about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops are valid and supported by scientific consensus. Most of the arguments from the biotech companies and the front groups lobbying for them consist of variations on the corporate tactic of "delay, deny, and defend", in this case, the old canard—"no evidence of adverse health effects of GMO foods exist have ever been verified or reported". However, anyone familiar with the GMO literature knows that claim is false. Virtually every claim about the safety of GMO's has been debunked using the current scientific literature.

Their safety record is in question throughout the world. In Hawaii alone, there have been problems with disclosure and adherence to the law:

"[Paul Achitoff] won a lawsuit in 2006 against several companies, including Monsanto, that were growing transgenic crops intended for use as pharmaceuticals. 'Our concern was they had not complied with the basic environmental laws in terms of environmental impact statements, endangered species analysis...and they were in locations secretly,' he said. 'Even if you wanted to know where they were you could not find out.' Achitoff said a federal judge agreed that the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act procedures had not been followed. 'It’s my belief they are not growing those types of crops in Hawaii' anymore, he said. 'They would need to disclose the basic fact that these crops are being grown.'"

Again, the concerns of the protesters are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination. These concerns are supported by published journal articles and documented court cases. Monsanto's theme of "delay, deny, defend", is their dominant tactic to fight these facts. They (and the industry front groups that support them) still to this day deny any health effects associated with DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and their herbicides and pesticides, even though the scientific consensus is firmly against them. Their usual tactic is to use the legal system to delay environmental regulations and liability, a process that can take decades.

That is exactly what is going on here with the massive lobbying effort against labeling laws—93% of the American public support labeling laws— and the continued compromised regulatory environment of the EPA, USDA, and FDA which act in Monsanto's best interests, not in the best interests of the public they are supposed to represent. To date, lobbyists have defeated the will of the people in California, New Mexico, and New York.

These lobbying efforts threaten the very existence of democratic capitalism and move us closer to authoritarian capitalism, where corporate governance controls food monopolies that dictate who eats and who doesn't, who farms and who doesn't, who survives and who doesn't.  To quote Ray Brown from our culture of the United States article, "In a democracy like the United States, it is the voice of the people– their likes and dislikes – that form the lifeblood of daily existence, of a way of life.  Popular culture is the voice of democracy, democracy speaking and acting, the seedbed in which democracy grows. Popular culture democratizes society and makes democracy truly democratic." If one were to speak in the colloquial terms of the United States, these actions by Monsanto do not get any more "un-American" than this. The Farmer Assurance Provision and Bowman v. Monsanto Co. are only two recent examples.

Wikipedia's guideline (not policy) on fringe theories has no bearing on this discussion. When asked to point out the fringe theories under discussion, the editors repeatedly adding the fringe tag are unable to answer the question. Pro-GMO editors are misusing the fringe guideline in an effort to prevent other editors from implementing the policies of verifiability and NPOV. This is not a fringe topic, and there are no fringe theories under discussion. Because there is no reason for a fringe tag to be added to this article, and because editors are unable to provide a reason, the tag should be removed.

For the record, I have previously documented the misuse of maintenance tags in the short essay, User:Viriditas/Don't hold articles hostage. I believe that a group of misguided editors are attempting to hold this topic "hostage" to their POV by repeatedly adding a tag while making unreasonable demands on the talk page. Consensus on the talk page and in the page history show that there continues to be no consensus for the tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dieter Mueller-Dombois
Dieter Mueller-Dombois is a German-American plant ecologist and botanist.

Life and work
Mueller-Dombois is the son of Johanna Dombis and the historian Georg Müller, and grew up near Bielefeld, Germany. He attended the University of Hohenheim, and received a diplom in agronomy before moving to Canada and attending the University of British Columbia. After receiving his B.S. in Forestry, he continued on to earn a PhD in Forest Ecology in 1960.

From 1958 to 1963 he worked as a Forest Research Officer for the Canadian Department of Forestry in Winnipeg, Manitoba, before taking a tenure-track position at the University of Hawaii. He became a full professor in 1972, and has been emeritus since 1990.

Areas of research

 * Ecological systems
 * Ecological changes after environmental disruption
 * Development of forest ecosystems
 * Geobiology and plant ecosystems of Hawaii

Together with the American botanist Francis Raymond Fosberg, Mueller-Dombois wrote "Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands", which is now a standard text covering the plant ecology of pacific islands.

Awards

 * 1981: Gifford Pinchot Award of the U.S. Forest Service for Forest Ecology Research in Hawaii
 * 1982: Double Merit Award for Distinguished Service at the University of Hawaii
 * 1988: Fujio Matsuda Scholarship, University of Hawaii
 * 2000: Reinhold-Tüxen Prize
 * 2004: Honorable degree from the Technical University of Cottbus

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559989591 your edit] to March Against Monsanto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * carried signs that read "Label GMOs, It’s Our Right to Know" and "Real Food 4 Real People". http://www.ibtimes.com/march-against-monsanto-draws-many-2-million-globally-facebook-twitter-once-
 * proteste-gegen-monsanto-a-901914.html Umstrittener Gen-Konzern: Weltweite Proteste gegen Monsanto] http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/

Shills
Can you please stop calling everyone shills. You are poisoning the well, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you were polite in your request, I would be happy to comply. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Set index, plain list article, or dab page
I'm having trouble getting my head around this one:

Disambiguation says:

We have:


 * List of trapdoor spiders
 * Battle of the Blues

Neither contains items that are the same as in the article title, but rather are also known as the name in the article title. The green text above doesn't mention whether the "same (or similar) name" must be the Wikipedia article's name or can be also called. If also called is okay, then shouldn't Battle of the Blues be categorized as a set index?

I commented at: Articles for deletion/Battle of the Blues

Most importantly, is this actually confusing or am I going daft? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe JHunterJ has already handled this query. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
I know you stayed away probably because of some potential politically adverse reaction it might have caused. I want you to know that I appreciate your encouragement and guidance all this time. You were my first mentor and friend here. You will always be those things to me. Best wishes and a heartfelt thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anna. Enjoy your new tools! Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You realize of course that you were probably the first to suggest this, so if things go pear shaped, I'll just point to you and say "He made me do it!" :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I echo the same sentiment as Anna, even though I was not involved in the GMO imbroglio. Have you considered retirement? I hope you don't, but given all that you've done for the encyclopedia and the latest hell you've had to go through from pseudoscientists, I would completely understand your reasons. All the best, Wer900 • talk 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with editing
As far as I can see, there are two ways to interpret your edit summary here. (1) You really meant what you said, or (2) you didn't, and actually know perfectly well what the other editor is talking about. In case 2, you are trolling, while in case 1, you are so completely blind to the nature of what you have been doing that you clearly lack the competence to edit collaboratively, which is a requirement for being a Wikipedia editor, not an option. Your recent posts on my talk page about Gobbleygook led me to look at various pieces of editing history, in which I saw that you consistently exhibit incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and a general battleground mentality, and that you frequently make accusations against other editors without providing evidence. I decided not to get involved, because the whole business of dealing with editors with belligerent and aggressive attitudes is one of the aspects of Wikipedia that I find really unpleasant, and that I prefer to avoid. However, as you know, another editor has consulted me for a third opinion, in response to which you have made further posts, and I felt that I should at least look into it. As a result, I have seen yet further, and worse, examples of your belligerent approach to other editors, your persistent incivility to anyone you disagree with, your unsubstantiated accusations, and also strange statements such as the one I posted at the start of this message, which, as I have already explained, is either disingenuous or else an indication that the problems with your editing will never be stopped, because you are sincerely unable to see them. I also see that you have a fairly long block record, and that some of the blocks were for matters related to the issues under consideration here. As I have already said, this is not the sort of issue in which I like to get involved, but I have been brought into it, initially by your posting on my talk page and subsequently by another editor's asking for help. Your approach to other editors that you disagree with are are totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's requirements, and are likely to lead to an extended block if they continue. The most important steps that you can take to avoid that block are (1) be civil to other editors, even when you think they don't deserve civility, (2) assume good faith unless and until there is sound evidence that you can cite to show others that there are substantial grounds for bad faith. Finally, one quite different point. If I see any more edit warring from you I will block for a substantial period without further warning. You don't need any explanation or any more warning about this: you have been blocked six times for edit warring, the first time just over six years ago, in addition to other times when you have been allowed to get away with edit warring. It is now time to convey the message that edit warring is unacceptable, not just that it's something that you can do as much as you like provided that you are willing to accept the risk of an occasional break from Wikipedia for a few days or a week or two. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:)
Hi V!

Welcome back! Wiki just got a little warmer... this must be the reason.

How difficult would it be to make three little video clips into one?  petrarchan47  t  c   00:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not difficult, but probably too large and unwieldy if you used the current files. What we really need is a universal playlist template, that allows anyone to stick a template in a section with multiple file type parameters.  If they are images, then the playlist box contains file names in one column and a slideshow of images in another.  If they are audio files, then those queue, if they are videos (like the above) then they play one after the other.  So the question at hand is, how do we go about getting this done? Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47, you can also try playing around with the collapse template:

[...]

I'm thinking something more along the lines of a file that would fit into one box, perhaps on the right side like an image with word-wrap, and would somehow play or link to all three videos. Right now, the article has only one image of the subject, and two other images that don't really hold much encyclopedic value. He has made firm the desire to stay out of media by refusing interviews. The world knows Snowden from his first video when he revealed himself as the source of the leaks and enumerated his reasons. Months later we get three video clips - totaling less than a minute. Visually, the video clips appear as still images when scanning the article. Even with these, the article is incredibly sparse and text-y. This is a function of the subject's ability to stay out of media. It also requires us to perhaps build the article in a way different from the usual. Much has been made of the beautiful new "NSA files decoded" by the Guardian, where text, video and still images/files are displayed in a beautiful, flowing, fun yet extraordinarily informative fashion - and it's very new. I could imagine Wikipedia benefiting from a bit of this new form of journalism. As technology allows, we may be able to include little video clips here as a norm. For now, it does look a bit clunky but to collapse it all would still leave us with mostly text, and is not an improvement. If we had ample media files filling the page, then I would jump on this in a heartbeat.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I filed a request for help, here.  You may want to join that discussion or help start a new one at the Village Pump. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. I've yet to visit the Village Pump, after all this time. Thanks for the reminder and for your help!  petrarchan47  t  c   00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've had nothing but frustrating experiences on the Village Pump, so I tend to avoid it. If you do go there, and you should, I would be very careful not to say anything ambiguous or easily misinterpreted.  The people over there tend to see the world as black and white, good and bad, and very few shades of gray.  Also, if you are trying to convince other people of your idea, be aware that they will try to shoot you down, so you will need to come up with counterarguments.  And people wonder why Wikipedia hasn't advanced in the last decade.  That's the reason.  In my personal experience, they tend to advance bad ideas and ignore the good ones.  Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be entirely honest, I took a gander once and found that the most prolific contributor was also one of the most tendentious I'd run across at the time, so haven't had any desire to return. Your warnings don't change that. I am sure some techie folks will be inspired to improve our media viewing ability here, and help with this. Just need to ask the right crowd?   petrarchan47  t  c   00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the most productive and helpful developers on this project have been blocked or run off the site, so good luck finding someone. Like I said, they reward mediocrity here and ban and block anyone and anything that actually improves the place.  All they seem to be interested in doing here is creating more and more bureaucracy, the very thing we should be destroying. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm running into these sentiments a lot today, with regard to this website. I wonder if we are watching it die. Kind of feels that way.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Heraclitus said that nothing is permanent except change, but at the same time, to quote the great Benjamin Sisko, you cannot destroy an idea. The very idea of a universal encyclopedia is an idea that took hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to come to fruition.  It is not over yet. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm quite sure he said nothing is permanent except change... and taxes. No? Not him? Anyway, I like your style. Bum your visitors out completely, then slam them with a reason for renewed hope and expanded vision. Thoroughly exhausted now. And I like it.  petrarchan47  t  c   01:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "You are the dreamer and the dream". We are at least 95% empty space. From my understanding of basic quantum physics, even that which we thought was 'solid', is actually energy too, just acting differently: a particle or a wave. But it turns out, the observer, the scientist behind the microscope, actually influences - indeed determines - how the energy appears. If s/he expects a particle, that is what will appear. So ancient mysticism is being proven by the most recent science. This is the very stuff Tibetan monks would discover by going deep into meditative states. Fritjof Capra writes about this in his Tao of Physics.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a popular theme in fiction, specifically Star Trek, with two of the best episodes (I'm sure there are more) devoted to the "dreamer and the dream", including the aforementioned DS9 episode Far Beyond the Stars (1998) and TNG's The Inner light (1992). I also like how authors and scientists like Sam Harris are trying to integrate mystical experiences into the human experience itself.  At the end of the day, "mysticism" isn't really so mystical, we just treat it as such because we are so alienated from our own place in nature.  We are conditioned by society to be at "war" with nature (look at the coverage of the latest typhoon as only one current example) rather than attempting to live with'' nature, in harmony. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, if indeed no-thing exists but energy, then this is a mystical reality - no other way to slice it. There exists no division, no separation between any 'thing'. How can we be at war with our own selves? We do it regularly.   petrarchan47  t  c   20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "mystery" itself (who are we, where did we come from, how did we get here, and where are we going?) is an active component of life, of living, and of being human. Our questioning nature is a process.  Many things are wondrous, amazing, incredible, and breathtaking, but we really shouldn't hide it under a category of "mysticism".  We need to take responsibility for our thoughts, and to begin ascribing a fundamental reality to how we act upon them. I'm not arguing for hardcore materialism or the antiquated notion of reductionism, I'm saying that we need to investigate our beliefs, our ideas, and our thoughts, and take responsibility for them.  In my opinion, (and we may have to agree to disagree) talking about "mysticism" leads to and enforces the separation you and I are both trying to avoid.  In this respect, I agree with the hardcore skeptics who refuse to believe anything without evidence, but I also disagree with them in that I believe that personal experience, intuition, dreams, insight, and thought itself can inform belief, which can sometimes be thought of as ineffable and not subject to close examination, not yet, anyway. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eeek, I didn't realize "mysticism" was such a loaded term. What I may have meant to say was, life is a trip. We do have hardcore evidence that there is not one solid thing in existence. We wear this earth suit that, through our senses, makes things appear solid, makes thing seem personal, makes things seem separate, makes things appear to be 'real', when in fact, no-thing is separate, no-thing exists. In "what the bleep do we know", they talk about scientists who have been able to isolate an object appearing in two places at the same time. They talk about the scientists observing in their microscopes a reality that just can't be - but it is. And then they drive home to their family. How do we simultaneously hold the trippy reality that quantum physics speaks to, and the mundane reality of our everyday lives? I wonder about this a lot.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason mysticism is such a loaded term is because of films like What the bleep do we know which tend to muddle the science and spirituality. You can see from the article that it has been accused of "misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience" and for promoting quantum mysticism.  Considering that it is associated with Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, you start to see other problems with the film.  I'm sure they mean well and all, but this makes the problem worse.  When we aren't exploring and experimenting, we need to think clearly about reality, and I'm not sure this film helps.  So the question is, how do you think clearly and critically about reality, and at the same time explore it unconditionally, without falling into the trap of cults and religions? It's difficult to find anyone who has succeeded in a group, because most groups fall prey to this kind of problem.  You certainly see it on Wikipedia, in many places, from admins banding together to fight the editors, to FRINGE theory crusading skeptics trying to fight the barbarians of belief, never minding the fact that that they are pushing their own crusade of scientism in the process. Nobody comes out of here with clean hands.  What we are really dealing with has nothing to do with spirituality, religion, or even science, it's all primate dominance, animal psychology, on a very primitive, instinctual level.  On the one hand you've got the my god can beat up your god crowd, while on the other, you've got the my nuke is bigger than your nuke crowd.  The end result is the same; they are going to end up killing us both regardless of how big their gods or how big their nukes are. Superstitious monkeys with nukes confined to a small planet due to their obsession with shit flinging and territorial pissing.  That about sums it up. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to the flick, you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or maybe you saw no babies). I am using a single example from the film that is not disputed in order to make a larger point: life is a trip. If the materialists on Wiki have decided to slam this film, well, it makes me like it more, not less ;)   petrarchan47  t  c   04:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The organization behind the film is run by J. Z. Knight who has been accused of brain washing. The first thing they do is discourage critical thinking. As I said before, most groups devolve into this kind of a cult, and it doesn't have to be religious.  You even see this in political groups.  Russell Brand (who himself has been accused of being involved with a cult) said quite tellingly, "the left looks for traitors while the right looks for converts".  That's very interesting and sort of shows what's at work. [Note: I have been informed that Brand did not say that originally and it's a very old phrase.  I will be eternally grateful to anyone who can track it down.] Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Found it myself! Michael Kinsley wrote: "Conservatives are always looking for converts, whereas liberals are always looking for heretics."  Inform the palace guards, I shall create a WikiQuote entry at once! :) Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't much available in the way of support for those who have had trippy experiences, like "near death". Having had one, I look for stories that help explain or that remind me of the formless bliss. But I am realizing that it's best to leave behind books and movies, opinions of the crowd, in the search for Truth. What I do know is that everything is made of atoms, and what we thought was solid inside them is not. There is nothing but energy, full stop. That is what I discovered when I died, too. I admit that I enjoy Rumi and others, as well as movies that have tried to speak to the notion that all is one, all is connected. Rumi calls it Love. Science calls it the Unified Field. Some call it God. [And yes, JZ Knight is crazy.]   petrarchan47  t  c   05:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Check out the International Association for Near-Death Studies and their website. They have a huge support group. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks again, V.   petrarchan47  t  c   21:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia profile
Thank you old friend. To add icing to the cake, I found out when I returned home that I was honored in a speech today in Guanica, Puerto Rico. See: [

https://www.facebook.com/notes/kenneth-d-mcclintock/mensaje-d%C3%ADa-del-veterano-guánica-2013/10151716515001338 Speech]. Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian Royal Family
I would like to start taking a look at the following articles to begin with:


 * Kamehameha I


 * Kānekapōlei


 * Keelikōlani

I think overall the articles lack encyclopedic tone. I also seem to remember you mentioning somewhere that many o the articles are lifting from their sources word for word and even if they are public domain, it isn't right. I agree, as many of these sources are not written in a manner you would use on Wikipedia. Some of this wording appears to have been edited a few times to attempt some kind of copy editing and general editing of the prose, but it just seems to have made the text very confusing, and the history itself is not easy to keep up with and require secondary sourcing to summarize in a neutral and accurate way. Case in point...Keelikōlani. She had two fathers from a Hawaiian tradition of a poʻolua ancestry (meaning roughly "two heads of the family". OK...but that needs to first be explained better and then we need to really re-write that prose to be clear what her paternity issue was upfront and clearly and that means that we will have to include a good deal of the criticism of the figure as she was outright denied the throne from Kamehameha V on his death bed, but there is a great deal more documented and it does appear to be reliably sourced. The full reasoning behind the issue of her being denied the throne are complicated as it seems obscured in accusations of all kinds being made against a number of others. These seem to be among the principles involved in the passing from the Kamehameha Dynasty to the Lunalilo. I want to get to him next.

What I hope to do is update, expand and begin getting them into GA or FA.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like the articles will be vastly improved with your help. Please consider updating MOS:HAWAII along the way, or creating style guidelines that other editors can draw upon for guidance. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Before I get too far into the articles, I noticed that Pauli Kaōleiokū needed cleanup as it supports a great deal of the other articles and there was an issue that was glaring about the paternity which is not so much a question, but a matter of which one. However, both accepted the figure as a son through the tradition of po'olua. The needed explanation for that tradition is also provided through a recent RS from 1990 that I believe is a solid source for the claims. I think people may get Ruth and him confused because of the "Two headed chief" thing, but Ruth's paternity had other issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE OK, well, there seems to be a lot more than I first thought. It appears the family tree for the Royal family is in need of a great deal of work as it appears there may be more than a few mistakes. I don't know what is considered the official family tree (if one really exists) but unless there is anything to state otherwise I think I will stick to the official Hawaiian Supreme Court decisions on the genealogy of the royal family at the death of Charles Kanaina (which this document may help to expand as well) to start with for determining the legal heirs and legally recorded and recognized line of almost everyone including Keelikōlani (Ruth) and Bernice Bishop. It is, at the very least, an excellent resource to what is legally recognized as of these rulings. I don't know what may have changed if anything, as there was at least one more major case (this one was at the request of King Lunalilo before he died. He specifically requested the Hawaiian Supreme Court oversee his estate. Since he died before his father, when Charles Kanaina did finally pass everything that was Lunalilo's which had passed to Kanaina was then handled by the court. It appears that, at that time, everyone in the royal family and sub families petitioned the court for a share of the estate (which had lands from before the Kamehameha Dynasty) and in doing so, had to prove their line. How great is that! So, there seems to be a huge amount of genealogy information from that period found in both the petitions (harder to find) and the decisions.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, don't worry about replies unless there is something you strongly disagree with or feel needs addressing. I'm going to use you as a sounding board with some of the issues I am finding and just keep you up to date with what I am doing.


 * I just got off the phone with the Bishop Museum because their Family tree shows Keelikōlani as a direct line to Pauli Kaōleiokū, however, that is not actually sourceable to my knowledge as accurate, while it is sourecable that she was a blood relation to Moana, through her father Kekūanāoa. The Bishop Museum Archivist was very gracious and generouse with his time and spoke to me about a number of things. First, there is not official family tree nor any that the bishop Museum endorses over another. They are not considered an authority an the genealogy of the royal family, but have the largest depository of primary and some secondary sources. He named a source for me to look into that appears to be the most recent research and secondary source for the Kamehameha line.


 * At any rate, I am going to be changing Wikipedia's Hawaiian Royal Family Tree and Ruth's article to indicate a blood relation to her father through her petition on the estate of Charles Kanaina (that's the source which appears secondary in nature for this information). I will look for a reliable secondary source to explain her other poʻolua ancestry before I make any changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Just try to briefly document your changes on the corresponding talk pages, so that if and when you are challenged, you'll be able to go back and point people to the answer. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Big Fish
Sorry for my simplistic approach. I couldn't really take sides. Because of that, and that you were at an impasse, it just seemed that other eyes were the way to go. And the only way to do that would be KISS so others wouldn't avoid getting involved.

I'm curious about Stella Papamichael of http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/06/01/big_fish_2004_dvd_review.shtml. She reviews for other sites. How does that work? Is that url an RS?

Another solution is to contact those who brought it to GA and vetted it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anna, I am the one who did the GA review and vetted it, hence my concern with the disruption. Further, I have a number of high quality sources at my disposal that I can send to you by email if you prefer.  Papamichael thought the film was funny and categorizes it as a comedy, but most reviewers don't see it that way. It's a film abut a father-son relationship told in the context of a fairy-tale adventure.  The so-called "comedy" is, according to reviewers "played straight", and not intended to be laugh out hilarious, but rather a form of magical realism.  I have read virtually every source on this subject and I haven't seen any source talk about the elements of comedy this is supposed to have, nor has the writer or director talked about any comedy at all.  I suppose people "laugh out loud" at things they find strange, and that was the intention, but not as form of comedy but rather fantasy. In other words, why do people cry when they are happy or laugh when they are sad?  I think that question goes a long way towards putting this in context.  Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: the review by Stella Papamichael (and her reference to the review by Adrian Hennigan) are highly unrepresentative of the critical reviews on this subject. First of all, most critics did not say this was Burton's finest film, so for Papamichael and Hennigan to say that is definitely off the beaten path.  Most critics said this was Burton's most personal film, not his finest. Second of all, most critics did not say it was a "laugh out loud" film, so that's strike two.  Definitely an odd set of review(s) that appear out of touch with the others. As I already pointed out, the "laugh out loud" scenes were meant to be played "straight" (without joking) as a gothic fantasy.  To me, this is like calling Star Wars a comedy because of the banter between Han Solo and Chewy, or calling Star Trek a comedy because Bones is always making jokes at Spock's expense. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have to see it. I like Finney. He was great in The Dresser. Anyway, about the genre, User:Andrzejbanas has read the same sources as you and heard your arguments. You still don't agree. So, it's probably rough consensus time. I'd go with neutrally pointing a few GA and wikiproject people to the article talk thread and all will be solved in a few days. Sorry I can't take a side on this. It wouldn't be very DRish. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not asking you to take a side. I asked for your advice on how to proceed via DR, remember? :) You answered, thanks for your time.  Anyway, I'm less interested in the outcome and more interested in the procedure, so I've asked the film project how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I thought you were trying to persuade me personally. :) I'm sorry I wasn't more helpful. I like your post at the film project. I do indeed think it's the best way to proceed. I think people will agree that the content of reviews must outweigh categorization of dBase sites, etc. So, the outcome will likely help solve the Big Fish dispute and others as well. Nice.


 * Soooooooooo, I'd like to take back all the feedback I gave before and suggest "Post at the film project to figure out how genres in general should be determined. Then cite that outcome in the Big Fish dispute." (Reminder to self: work on the time machine) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Temporal police, ma'am. Gonna have to ask you to stop messing with the timeline...
 * Good thing the temporal police aren't around. They'd would probably ask me to stop messing with the timeline. :)

Plug and feather
Do you remember that article I wrote years ago? I always imagined what the sound was like. I finally just heard it. It was a joy! 

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing such an interesting video. I really enjoy stuff like this, so if you ever come across something like it again, please feel free to send it along.  My only complaint (and it's probably more of a nitpick) is 1) the film  appeared to have been shot with only one camera, and 2) the sound was not properly mixed.  I realize that sounds a bit critical, but if they had made use of at least two cameras, each angle change would not have been a jump-cut and there would have been a seamless transition from step a to step b.  As for the sound, the loudest part of the film was the sound of insects chirping, which tended to drown out the sound of the granite cracking (although you could hear it if you strained really hard with headphones on).  For such an amazing event, they should have at least invested in two cameras and at least one external mic and a proper level mix. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I didn't notice any of the one camera and sound issues. I just like the different sounds the hammer made. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was interesting. He could almost play a tune on the plugs.  I guess I notice stuff that most people don't see or never give a second thought to, so you will have to excuse my hyper-critical perspective. :)  Using one camera in place of two is sort of a big no-no.  And I guess my hearing is far more sensitive than yours!! Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Epic story
Thought you might enjoy this.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to email stuff like this in the future. :) Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. This was brought up here previously in relation to the videos at Snowden. I still think it would be neat if Wikipedia could move slightly in this direction, adding more interactive media to articles.   petrarchan47  t  c   03:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Part of the problem is the clunky Wikimedia interface that doesn't favor mixed media in the layout, let alone images.  I think, however, that there is a lot of room for improvement. Do you remember what Wikipedia articles first looked like when they first started showing up in search indexes?  Not a pretty sight. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm guessing we haven't moved forward much since then? For that matter, mainstream media hasn't either. Otherwise, this particular Guardian piece wouldn't be shaking the online world of journalism like it is, and the article I linked to above would be able to point to more than two other similar pieces.   petrarchan47  t  c   04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The original Wikipedia articles had the appearance of basic HTML pages out of 1994. It was hideous.  At one point, I seem to recall someone playing around with the colors, and viewing gold or yellow text on a purple background, but I could be remembering it wrong.  It was so bad, you couldn't even read it on your screen, which was maybe the point.  I got the sense they didn't really want people to participate, or at least, didn't care that people couldn't read the pages.  This was either before or after 9/11, I can't recall exactly, but I'm thinking it was around July 2001 when I first noticed it coming up in the search indexes.  It's funny that I remember this, but my first thought at the time was, this is a fantastic idea, but poorly implemented.  It looked like a guestbook, not an encyclopedia. They have come a long way.  Maybe there's a way to go, still. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Yes, let's move this along then! There's always a ways to go, still :)   petrarchan47  t  c   06:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember the original paper-version of Encyclopedia Britannica, and it's interactive articles? The translucent filmy pages showing different layers of the body as you flipped through, in full color? Has the online version (Wikipedia, not Britannica, I mean) caught up to this yet? It doesn't seem so. I'm dreaming of the day our articles will look like the Guardian piece.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What a wonderful comment! Your deep insight always amazes me.  Yes, people like Felice Frankel (and many others) have discussed how important visualization is for learning about ideas.  As a child, I do remember that the World Book Encyclopedia had those transparencies, and children would always turn to them right away because when you picked up the book, it stood out from the binding ever so slightly.  Zygote Body has an online version you can play around with and of course, there's an app for that. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm about as insightful as the children attracted to shiny, colorful things. But thanks ;) I use the transparencies from EB as an example, but now that we are online, we should have absolutely limitless potential for a wide variety of such interactive and informative embellishments. Seeing the Guardian piece, and the resounding support from the online community for this advanced type of storytelling, then turning around to find out that at Wiki, we can't even string 3 short videos together and display them in a stylish way, has really awakened me. If technology is advancing at an exponential rate, then conceivably we will, in a matter of years, be reading Wikipedia articles in the form of a hologram in front of us, turning pages with the blink of an eye or even a thought. Regarding the clean, data-packed layout of the Guardian piece: this is how I would expect those future wiki articles to be. I'm wondering... if we were to move forward beginning now, what steps would make the most sense? Do you feel there is a thriving group of Wiki techies, or does one need creation? Is the fact that we've had no response on the Snowden video-linking query an indication that folks are asleep at the wheel, or that good communication between people working toward advancing these aspects of the wiki does not exist? I've got a vision, but like a small child, it's all I've got besides questions.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer to your questions are simple to understand, but complex in their overall scope. It will take me a while to formulate a response in less than 100,000 words. :)  I need to figure out a way to chunk it down into smaller responses. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I came too late! I was going to apologize for laying all of this on you, and refocus. I am having a hard time accepting that the three videos can't be linked. I remember you thought visiting the Village Pump might be an OK idea. I may take that advice.... (Looking forward to the below! You never know what you'll find at this talk page.)   petrarchan47  t  c   05:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the files can't be merged. The question was whether they should be due to the size and requirements of the hosting service. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, it still sounds like "can't" to me :)   petrarchan47  t  c   06:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How large of a file of that type can you upload on Commons? What kind of software do you need to splice them together?  Would a larger file of this type impact the viewing experience?  Those are the questions you want to ask. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mighty helpful, many thanks!  petrarchan47  t  c   15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose and function

 * Philosophy

Access and interface

 * HCI
 * Technology
 * Ubiquity

Vision and foresight

 * Adaptive
 * Unity of knowledge

Accountability and responsibility

 * Readers
 * Editors
 * Machines