User talk:Viewfinder

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Your retirement

Respect your decision and whatever the reasons for it, but hoping you reconsider and change your mind soon. We need you around here man. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Contact me by e-mail if necessary. Viewfinder (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is the sad result of the behaviour of minor contributors or the rules of Wikipedia then there's something seriously wrong with both of them. I'm very sorry to see you go.

Qwrk (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My withdrawal was the immediate consequence of a general purge of my internet media accounts following the excessive use of Facebook to pull strings in my life. But I have decided not to restore my Wikipedia account. My site, which includes my e-mail address, is still available. The behaviour of the User:Farhoudk, who made claims that are just plain wrong, was certainly not helpful. But the biased and nasty response of administrator User:JamesBWatson and his cohorts, who blocked me not my opponent despite him not me breaking 3RR, upset me considerably more. But, as an independent topographic researcher, the rules too are a problem, particularly the WP:OR rule. Even if I can put together a referenced argument in support of my claims, my edits can still be challenged as OR. My site has been used as a reference by other editors so it is evidently regarded by Wikipedians as adequately reliable. It is therefore better for me to post my research to my own site, then let others judge it before deciding whether or not to post it to Wikipedia. I will be updating my inflated elevations page very soon, especially the section on Mount Damavand. I hope it will be considered more reliable than unreferenced or outdated claims in outdated articles by employees of the likes of NASA and USGS. In recent times I have tended towards using Wikipedia, rather than my own site, as a platform for my own research, bending the OR rules too far in the process. Viewfinder (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see your retirement. You might go to vacation :) instead to get rid of these temporary headaches for a while. Your statements on WP:OR rule is a reality. New official measurements are available for Mount Damavand elevation using gravimeter as well, but still is not reliable for me to mention on wiki, as Iranian authorities have not published it officially yet!! Also when it comes to compare elevation of Damavand with other summits in for example Eastern Europe to have extra judgments, all measurements must be accomplished by same internationally acceptable procedures and instruments. I am sure this kind of global measurements will be done in near future and not only the problem of having inaccurate elevation of Mount Damavand will be resolved but also we will see better accuracy for elevation of summits mentioned in List of Iranian four-thousanders as well. Until then, it is better to leave the elevation of Mount Damavand as disputed. Farhoudk (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If Iranian authorities have and are about to publish new information then we can wait for it. Let's hope they do. Viewfinder (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of individuals must be accurate

Adding a link from 1998 is a low value link because the information is entirely trivial. That this is the best that you can do does add weight to the inevitable conclusion that this BLP of a minor isn't worth the bytes its written in.

Describing him as a mathematician and astrophysicist is also misleading. He is at best, a student whose had a puff biography written of him by his mother. Please do not add misleading information. And please do not lecture me on this sortof thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the description should have been amended per the article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks we've just lost another

It's getting lonely here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be over Jorge Egocheaga, with Qwrk insisting that he be included in the verified list, citing Eberhard Jurgalski's 8000ers.com. I have just downloaded the cited page and I cannot find him listed. EJ is well known to me, I could contact him directly. Viewfinder (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And Qwrk is apparently waiting for an update. Any help would be appreciated I'm sure.

I will contact EJ. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile it appears that Qwrk has already heard from EJ, who has not updated his site. Whatever the situation, until we have a reliable source in support of the claim that JE's ascent has been accepted, he has to remain in the disputed section. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at [1]? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Eberhard just called me to inform me that a user, who goes by the same name as User;Globetrotter1918, has been active on Polish wikipedia, and who is currently blocked "with an expiry time forever (account creation disabled, can not edit own talk page) (unauthorized use of puppets)"

Check;

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Globetrotter1918 [translation here; https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffly.jiuhuashan.beauty%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecjalna%3AWk%25C5%2582ad%2FGlobetrotter1918&edit-text= ]

When it comes to logical fallacies ["8000ers.com is NOT the authorative source for this!" while at the same time using link to sources on 8000ers.com to be used as a reference], I stand by my view that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform when a contributor with 3,000 edits is given the same weight as a newby with 6 edits to his name.

I thought this is something you all should know.

Qwrk (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Finisterre

I will e-mail EJ. Thank you for the Finisterre edit. I think we should accept the 4150m GPS reading and delete the references to 4125 and 4175. I have asked PB to upload more information about the name. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also edited one (Keokradong) and added another (Mowdok Mual) prominence in Bangladesh. I hope these will not be disputed. Peakbagger is not a reliable source of summit coordinates or prominence data other than where its author has cited other sources. Viewfinder (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have amended my retirement to semi-retired, that appears to be the way it is working out. I am still available to help where I can. Viewfinder (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope Qwrk is ok.

Regarding Finisterre: I noticed earlier in the Bjørstad source it says "Primary factor 3700 m" under the elevation. Is this a prominence? If so I would much rather use a value that is directly sourced rather than one we calculated on a talk page. The combined error margin of the two measurements probably exceeds 7 m anyway. As I am about to change the standing of five peaks at List of peaks by prominence with this, I would like to be armed with a least something.

Also would you mind if I moved or copied our Finisterre posts from here to the article talk page? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes these should be moved to article talk page. Primary factor is another name for prominence. I stand by the 441m col and would rather it was not changed, at least until I have asked about the source of 3700 on the Boising page. Viewfinder (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussions

Hi VF. Noticing you are currently engaged in a productive discussion. In that spirit, I would recommend you restore what you removed here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. What is happening is that User:Slawekb, having failed to get an article removed, is now slanting that article against its subject - a minor - and in particular his mother, by giving undue weight to exaggerated claims. I will not be provoked into edit warring at the article. As for what I removed from its talk page, BBB refers to the subject as "my favorite minor" in a context that can only be a suggestion that I am motivated by an inappropriate attraction to the subject. Given the current hysteria in the UK that has been generated by Operation Yewtree, I am not minded to let him or her get away with that. In fact, I am more minded to report it. At the very least I want an apology. My interest in the remarkable subject is wholly based a common autistic condition and scientific background, and the urge to defend him and his mother against hurtful attacks by a cabal. I do not ever expect to meet him or communicate with him in any shape or form. Viewfinder (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I hear ya. Though consider that generally an unfounded accusation or personal attack reflects more negatively on the editor who says it, rather than the editor it is directed at. At least in my opinion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for 9 years. Most of my edits have been on topographic related issues, but occasionally I get involved with other issues. I affirm emotional interest in the Jacob Barnett article because of the autism issue which affects me personally. I have argued strongly in support of the existence of the article, and rejoined the argument last night in response to what I saw as an attempt to get the article deleted through the back door by toning up criticism of its subject, who is a minor. What really upset me was the use of four letter words by the initiator of this section in support of his or her case against the article. Viewfinder (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder, it here looks like you are trying to justify the removal of Barney's post because it includes four letter words. The only four letter words in that post are "what", "that", and "very", and surely you cannot be objecting to these, so I assume you must mean something else. But if you want to accuse Barney of using inappropriate language, you should be prepared to support it with diffs. Don't rely on him (or anyone else) knowing what in the world you are talking about.

That having been said, I don't think it was necessary to go to ANI with this issue. However, I do think you should carefully consider your role in editing that article. You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the existing sources critically, even to the point of being unable to see the obvious falsehoods contained in those articles and presented with clear evidence. It is not uncommon for an individual who is otherwise a good critical thinker to be unable to exercise that skill fully when presented with a conflict of interests. This is a clear cognitive bias, and as such you are probably not even aware of it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the four letter words: I am sorry, I was called away suddenly before I had time to post the diffs. Here they are: [2] [3]. Re my specific reasons for removing Barney's post, I stated these in the section above. Regarding my editing of the article, see [4]. I have made only minor edits, some of which you reverted on sight but subsequently part reinstated. I don't think I need reconsider my editing role. That Barney has accused me at ANI of owning the article is astonishing. I reject your claim that I have not examined the sources critically. I was not the only editor at DRV to challenge your "obvious falsehood" accusations made against multiple non-tabloid journalists. I also reaffirm my suggestion that you are toning up the criticism with intent to further an ongoing goal to get the article removed. Still, if you can reach a consensus with Cunard and Marshall about the article, I will not challenge that consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a long list of sources presented at the AfD, and Agricola44 gave a lengthy and fairly conclusive analysis questioning the reliability of each of them. As to obvious falsehoods: (1) Claims that Barnett has a higher IQ than Einstein (Einstein never had an IQ test performed, and anyway no source is ever given for the apparently invented number of 170 that the Daily Mail article suggests). (2) Barnett was tipped as a future Nobel Prize winner (BBC and others). (3) Barnett disproved Einstein's theory of relativity (Time and others). (4) Barnett is one of the world's most promising physicists (MacLeans and others). (5) Scott Tremaine is a Princeton University professor (many sources). I know that you are (apparently) unable to detect falsehood; see cognitive bias. But at least accept that a news report making an unattributed claim that Barnett is "tipped for a Nobel Prize", whatever that might mean, cannot be considered reliable. It does not meet the journalistic standards set forth by the BBC's own editorial guidelines as articulated in http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-accuracy-principles/, especially paragraph 3.2.2: "All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed."

Also, I have already explained my motives in the appropriate discussion page: I am trying to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:WEIGHT. You realize that in questioning my motives you are now calling me a (*gasp*) liar?! Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You accuse me of calling you a liar yet you repeat accusations that multiple non-tabloid journalists have been indulging in "obvious falsehoods". Please explain to me the difference between an "obvious falsehood" and a lie, or allow me to point out that those who live in greenhouses should not throw stones. I was not the only editor at DRV to reject your claim of obvious falsehoods, see [5]. Viewfinder (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's back away from the "obvious falsehoods" for a minute. Let's aim for a slightly lesser goal: journalistic accuracy. Per the paragraph that I quoted above, would you agree that reliable news sources must refrain from unfounded speculation, and that content that cannot be corroborated should be attributed? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to your recent edits, the sources whose accuracy was questioned were excluded from the article. There is a place in the article for mention and criticism of these sources, but the weight that you have given them is undue. Viewfinder (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder, you did not answer my question. The question was "would you agree that reliable news sources must refrain from unfounded speculation, and that content that cannot be corroborated should be attributed?" Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that what you call "unfounded speculation" would be more accurately described as giving lay readers the impression that the issue is greater than it actually is. Ideally this should not happen, but realistically, short of imposing draconian censorship, I don't see how it can be prevented. It is right that challenges to such journalism be added and given due weight, even if we disagree about the appropriate weight at Jacob Barnett, where there is too much about the news coverage controversy. Incidentally one of my favorite internet sites is The Skeptics' Bible. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not referring to generalities when I say "speculation". I am referring to specific, concrete statements that are not mere statements of verifiable facts, like "Barnett is tipped for a Nobel Prize", "Barnett has disproven Einstein", "Barnett's IQ is higher than Einstein", and "Barnett is one of the world's most promising physicists". Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Tipped for Nobel Prize"...If I thought a horse had a 100-1 chance of coming in, I would tip that horse if it were quoted at 200-1. Tipping someone does not even imply that it is likely that he will win, only that the tipster thinks he is more likely to win than the rest of the world thinks he is. "Disproven Einstein"... when Barnett was 12, he may have said that he thought he could do this and that he had the equations to do so, that is what Time wrote, Time did not state disproven Einstein as fact. "IQ higher than Einstein"... of course we'll never know, Einstein was never tested; journalists are not perfect, people like you and I can always pull them up on such slips. It is neither "obviously true" nor "obviously false" that Barnett's IQ is higher than Einstein's was. It may be true, or it may not. "One of world's most promising physicists"... again, that is subjective. None of these examples are "obvious falsehoods". Right wing journalists in the UK often write that Conservative governments manage the UK economy better than Labour governments. Such statements are neither obviously true nor obviously false. Viewfinder (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have said that we should not focus for the moment on the "obvious falsehood" criterion, since what is obvious to some is clearly not so obvious to others, but rather the much less subjective criterion that news sources, if they are considered to be reliable, must adhere to the basic standards for accuracy in reporting as articulated by the BBC's editorial guidelines. Specifically: 2: "All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed." Do you agree that this is a reasonable standard to which our sources should be held? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will not be trapped into supplying an unconditional Yes or No answer. If we cover a non-obvious situation we should maintain a neutral point of view. Viewfinder (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to "trap" you. I am just trying to arrive at an agreement as to what kinds of news sources are regarded as quality sources for writing an encyclopedia. For example, I recently read an article that quoted the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk as expressing concern over the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. The attribution for the concern was very clear, and an encyclopedia article could say "Donald tusk was concerned..." etc. But a statement such as "Barnett is tipped for a Nobel Prize" does not have any attribution, and it is not clear what the source of such a statement is. That is what is commonly called "speculation", and while you might be reluctant to give an unconditional answer to my query, hopefully you will agree that speculation is not exactly a hallmark of reliability in journalism.

To relate this to an example that you raised before, I hope you would agree also that we should be equally careful in referencing an article written by a conservative journalist who asserts that conservative governments manage the economy better. Indeed, this would be a statement of opinion and not fact, and it would potentially taint the rest of the source (we have a policy on this: WP:NEWSORG). Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"He is working on a subject.... if he solves it he is in line for a Nobel Prize..." While that is not necessarily a statement that he will get or is even likely to get a Nobel Prize, can not the BBC and I still argue that Tremaine is tipping him? I refer you back to my horse analogy. Viewfinder (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It would have been fine if the BBC had said that they contacted Scott Tremaine, who then had said: : "Watch this one. He's a likely candidate for a future Nobel Prize." Then we could say that "According to Scott Tremaine..." etc. However, there is no indication that the BBC did contact Tremaine, or indeed that they contacted anyone regarding the statement. It is an unattributed statement; that's what the word unattributed means.

But to head off any more attempts to decipher what Tremaine's views really might be from the selective quote that Mrs. Barnett furnished the Indianapolis Star reporters, the only time in this entire affair that Tremaine actually corresponded directly with a reporter, he said this (to the Indianapolis Star correspondent):

"I have seen a YouTube video in which Jake describes his theory, and I have spoken with his mother and corresponded with both her and Jake by email," Tremaine said. "I hope that Jake continues his interest in physics and mathematics."[6]

I have no doubt that this is faithfully reported by the journalist in question, and accurately and entirely represents Tremaine's opinion on Jacob's promising future. Do you agree? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread seems to be no longer about my behaviour and is becoming an intelligent and interesting discussion about the BBC. Of course the BBC do not always get it right. All organisations deviate from time to time from their own guidelines. They are no more perfect than the people who work for them. Right now I have more pressing tasks which prevent me from giving your question the in-depth attention that it deserves, I will try to answer it soon but meanwhile it would probably be best if you return to the article talk page and try to seek consensus with Cunard and Marshall about the article. Viewfinder (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Having had time to think about it, I have decided that, contrary to what I wrote above, I will not continue this discussion here. If it belongs anywhere, it is at Talk:Jacob Barnett, but given that the issue was discussed exhaustively at AfD and DRV, I think that re-opening it even there amounts to raking over old coals. Viewfinder (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder (talk · contribs) - your petty arguing above is exactly the sort of behaviour that I'm concerned about. It's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:REFUSINGTOGETTHEPOINT. You clearly don't understand what you're being told. Nor do you understand that you don't understand. There should be no debate here. You are trying to argue that speculation is substantive, and in doing so you are wasting a lot of people's valuable time (including presumably your own) because of this. Please stop wasting your time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Barney you have a five mile long Wikipedia track record of showing gross disrespect for and incivility towards the positions taken by anyone who does not comply with your position. You accuse such adversaries of ignorance and incompetence even to the point of trying to get them blocked. You seem to think that there is only one point of view, yours, and that you have the right to stop the next contributor having his or her say. What have you got against me? You accuse me of owning an article to which Slawekb has contributed ten times as much. Viewfinder (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't suffer fools gladly. Suffering fools gladly is considered a good character trait around here by some. If editors are not foolish, I have no problem. It is really quite simple. I admire Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs)'s patience for he appears to be doing a very good impression of someone banging their head against a brick wall. However, I can't join him.

One thing I do have a real problem with is people engaging in the "incivility defence", that is as a defence changing the subject and pathetically whinging and whining about incivility and perceived offence when valid points are made to them in a somewhat robust and forthright manner where the robustness and forthrightness of the message is necessary due to the nature of the communication.

You've played the incivility defence card about 3 times now. Please stop, it's seriously not cool, and it's excessively tiresome. As a tactic it will win you no friends. This isn't about me - it's about you.

Now as I was trying to say, based on your past record (see above), I don't think unfortunately that you are capable of understanding. Nor do you understand that you don't understand - which means of course that you think you do understand, and you think you can try to sway other users with your views, despite you consistently being in a minority of one. And hence we get the arguing. Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs) seems to think the same, although he's still trying.

The onus is on you to develop some self-critical thinking skills and listen to your peers.

If admins won't take action they'll let the WP:DRAMA develop unnecessarily so everyone wastes more energy, until such a point in time that you've not only shot yourself in the foot (as you have done now) but several other more critical parts of your anatomy as well. So please stop, the WP:DRAMA is dull. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Barney, you need to stop patronizing me and examine your own lack of self-critical thought. Your talk page archive is a long catalogue of conflict with other editors. There is nothing robust about using offensive four letter words and telling other editors that they are ignorant and incompetent. It is uncivil and obstructs constructive discussion. Consistent minority of one? I cannot see the difference between my position at Jacob Barnett and those of Cunard, Marshall, two admins and several other contributors to the DRV. I am no less entitled to be there than you are. You need to accept that the article is here to stay, at least for now, and help us to reach consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My take

This contribution states that I am "obsessed with this BLP of a minor to an unhealthy degree". Could it be that the contributor has an unhealthy obsession with his or her determination to get the BLP deleted? In accordance with his or her wishes, I have not responded to his or her essays at User_Talk:Sandstein there, but I would point out some facts here.

On his user page, User:Slawekb quotes another editor: Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-knit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. An evident cabal consists of Slawekb, User:David_Eppstein, User:Agricola44, User:Xxanthippe and User:Barney the barney barney. If we count the contributions from this cabal to AfD and DRV, and those who appear to have been canvassed by this cabal, as coming from a single editor, then we have clear majorities in favour of the article at both discussions.

The subject is a minor with high functioning Asperger's syndrome, which affects me to and provoked my interest in him. The cabal wax about him being a "vulnerable minor" but point to no WP policy which addresses the issue of minors. He has been covered extensively by the mass media. Presumably with the approval of his mother and other adult supporters, he has a facebook page where he calls himself a "public figure".

Like this contributor, who writes that analysis supports the need for an encyclopedic article, to present the subject in a better-structured, more illuminating perspective, I strongly support the article. While I deny that much of the mass media coverage of its subject is obviously false, the coverage may have left some of its lay readers with the impression that relativity and the Big Bang had been disproved. Our article, which is getting close to ten thousand hits per month, more than most UK cabinet ministers, is necessary to inform such readers. I have my reservations about the current article, much of which is being written by the above mentioned Slawekb, but it has enough watchers to ensure that it remains, for the most part, neutral.

The activity of edit warring cabals on Wikipedia must be resisted. Otherwise they will turn Wikipedia into battleground where pressure groups jockey against each other to bring out the most supporters. Viewfinder (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Two comments: The accusation of canvassing is wholly without merit. Such accusations are to be supported by diffs, not simply guessed at from the appearance of frequent editors at AfD. Here you've essentially indicted everyone with whom you have disagreed as being part of a "cabal". Users like User:Xxanthippe, for instance, whose only connection to this whole affair is being a frequent contributor to AfD discussions. Unsupported by any evidence, insisting that the policy based reasons advanced by a majority of experienced editors at the AfD, none of whom are strangers to that forum, should be ignored as the output of some hidden conspiracy is obvious special pleading at best, if not an outright attempt at deception. But if you want to insist on the matter, you are welcome to keep digging that hole. Secondly, the quotation on my talk page is in reference to a species of denialism that we see quite frequently on Wikipedia, including the Big Bang denialism that you are implicitly guilty of in continuing to defend claims made in the press about Barnett. Denialists frequently see conspiracies, such as cabals intent on suppressing their viewpoints. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I reaffirm my view that you are, and implicitly defend on your user page, part of an edit warring cabal. I am not denying relativity or the Big Bang. Nor is the great majority of the press material which you condemn. Viewfinder (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you reaffirm your belief that I, or some other named party, engaged in canvassing? If so, on what basis do you draw this conclusion? Iinsofar as experts in relevant fields (mathematics and physics) constitute a "cabal", then your reading of the quotation on my user page would not be entirely out of context. I am a mathematician and physicist, David Eppstein is quite a well known mathematician, and Xxanthippe is a physicist. In fact, the only named parties in this cabal of which you speak whose backgrounds I am uncertain of are Barney and Agricola. Now you clearly think that a "cabal" of individuals who are experts in relevant fields is something insidious. I happen to think that experts are a good thing, and, by and large, the kind of people we actually want writing an encyclopedia. That's just my view on the matter, though. If you want to condemn me for holding this point of view, then that is your prerogative. But let's not pretend that the quotation on my user page is saying something it is not. It is rather an injunction against know-nothings who think that because they read an article in the New York Times or wherever that they think they are knowledgable enough to edit for content an article about black holes, for example. You may not have much experience with this, but as a regular science editor, I assure you that it happens all the time, and it is necessary for knowledgable individuals to police scientific articles on essentially a constant basis to ensure accuracy of the encyclopedia. Interestingly, this view is essentially already enshrined in the WP:COMPETENCE essay. The only actual diff that you have provided here questions your competence. So it is no wonder that you try to undermine the integrity of editors who have held the position that competence is required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cabal is not necessarily insidious. But I don't think edit warring can be defended on the grounds that one warrior knows more about the subject than another. You seem to think that because you are a mathematician and I am not, you have more authority and I am incompetent. FYI, I studied double mathematics, physics and chemistry to advanced level, I took a course in astronomy, and I have a degree in engineering from the University of Cambridge. I was told that the only reason I failed to achieve three A-level grade A's was that I fluffed my physics practical examination. So I am not a complete layman. But even if I were, the article debate was not about astrophysics or even science, it was about the general notability of its subject. Regardless of the number of hands who claimed that the article should be deleted, the notability of its subject was established to the satisfaction of the closing administrator. Viewfinder (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder, I could give a toss about your personal credentials at this point. I am reacting here only to your accusations of canvassing and your accusation that I am a part of some "cabal" whose opinions should be given less weight than the views of the minority of commentators. This is your explicit contention in the original post. You also made some effort to link this to the quotation on my talk page, which is about the importance of experts—in effect, actually the importance of an elitist stance in dealing with scientific topics in an encyclopedia. You appear to be taking the view that the opinions of experts are not important, and that they should be disregarded as coming from some unseen "cabal". This is beyond perverse reasoning. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from calling my reasoning "beyond perverse", you are misrepresenting me. What I said is that the view of a cabal should be weighted per the merit of its contributions, not per its contribution to the hand count, and I was challenging the assertion that its "expert" composition should give it extra weight because the debate was about general, not academic, notability. Viewfinder (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You specifically asserted that these viewpoints should actually be given less weight, because they are coming from members of a cabal. A cabal that you explicitly link to the quotation on my user page that is specifically about cabals of experts. Moreover, the individuals that you chose to combine in this fictitious "cabal" are exactly those with an extensive scientific background. Or, rather, it seems to me that you are arguing for special consideration of your own position, because it is made by someone who is not in the "expert" category. This is precisely the sort of spurious and idiotic reasoning that prompted User:ScienceApologist to say what he did in the first place. We've heard arguments like so-and-so should not edit an article on such-and-such because he is an expert, and therefore has a conflict of interests. You claimed not to be a denialist, but if that is so you are certainly doing a very good impression of one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of my position. Nobody is stopping you editing Jacob Barnett. Viewfinder (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that my view should be disregarded. How is that better? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The logical extension of your position is that creationism should be deleted on the grounds that it is patently false. But however certain we may be about that, we cannot not have an article about something which 40% of Americans uphold. Viewfinder (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's just a non sequitur. What we should not do is cover the notion of creationism from a point of view that gives undue weight to the creationist claims, and it would be equally inappropriate to include a creationist viewpoint in an article on evolution or, for that matter, an evolutionary biologist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, I guess I'll weigh-in. I assure you that I have not been canvassed and have not canvassed regarding this issue or any other. I think the real explanation to what has been perceived as canvassing/cabaling is that the list of commentators named above all seem to have a technical level of knowledge much higher than the average bear and, to that group (me included), the claims made both by Jacob and on his behalf are ispo facto nonsense. I will say again that (1) WP:NPOV dictates that the "whole Jacob narrative" be present in the article and (2) despite lack of any WP policy, I think adherence to point (1) means, in practical terms, that we have efficiently placed all of these "youthful indiscretions" in one convenient place (with sources) for the world to gawk at. This will be increasingly harmful to his prospects as time goes on. It is clear that his handlers have fed much of this nonsense to a complicit media for the sole purpose of promotion and, if he is really interested in physics, he will very likely look back and wish none of this had happened. (Disclaimer: I don't propose to read his mind. If he is instead just interested in being a "public figure" (as his Facebook page says), then scratch everything I said. In that case, there is no bad publicity and the WP:NPOV version of the article does no harm at all.) Agricola44 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I decided that it would be better to restore and respond further to Barney's comments than to leave them deleted. I was provoked into that on discovering that Barney has still not dropped the stick, and has been trying to pursue the matter with the DRV closer. That has evidently provoked further comments to which I am also responding. Incidentally @Barney the barney barney:, I deny any personal obsession with the article subject, such as obsession would mean that I am mad or bad. Obsessions are seldom healthy, even with adults. But they are not necessarily the fault of their bearer. It is possible to manufacture an obsession.

The claims attributed to Jacob when he was 12 were not represented as fact by the great majority of media artcles, but their mass circulation make it right that we have an article with links to articles by scientists which debunk these claims. Regarding your point that they are damaging, I think that fact that he, an autistic boy, made them when he was 12, will be taken into account. Also, they're out there anyway, I don't see how we are adding to any damage by presenting them in a neutral article. That said, if he were to send a clear signal that he wants to concentrate on his research and stop being a public figure, and put the publicity behind him, then perhaps we should remove the claims. I know you would respond that that would defeat his general notability and the raison d'etre for the article, but notability can never be completely erased, so I still think a shell article should be retained. If he becomes a notable researcher then we can add to it. But unless or until he sends a clear signal that he no longer wants to be a public figure, we should retain the NPOV article, as you seem to now agree. Whether we like it or not, his youtube video has topped three million hits. Viewfinder (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Denial. I deny the absurd claim above that I am part of a cabal. I have canvassed nobody and nobody has canvassed me. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC).