Archives

On vacation, responses may be slow

Hi Yasis.

In case JCDenton keeps at it, see [1]. NJGW (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jive or Jibe?

Statements which do not jibe (agree) with the source are jive (BS). JRSpriggs (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil image

I have responded on my talk page. Thank you DodgeTheBullet (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic fuel

Hi, NJGW. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Reverting Green Energy

I am trying to improve the quality of the Green Energy article and your constant reverting is stopping me from doing this. Unless you want to refute my argument by properly studying the source in question and discussing on the discussion page for my edit please stop it. Remember 3RR.

Also: "Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit whatsoever, not to refute an editor with whom one happens to disagree.".

Thanks.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is...

I'm not doing original research here. If so you would recognise what I have done here is not original research, it is a critique which attempts to show that the emboldened quote mentioned multiple times in this discussion is illogical in a scientific context.

How is the following paragraph, for example, original research? It is not an opinion, it is not speculation, it is not an unpublished fact, it is not an original idea. It is not an analysis. It is simply pointing out a logic problem in a statement. You can't make a statement like x is bad at y in a scientific context without stating compared against z or compared against some generally accepted yardstick. Do you actually have an understanding of logic in a scientific context?

"Firstly, irrespective of your argument that this is presented as a claim, the fact remains that the way the claim is presented is illogical - there is no fair comparator for the claim that "Nuclear Power is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions". A fair comparator should be found or some idea of efficiency viz. inefficiency should be presented, if even from the biased source itself, before re-inserting this part. Without it, it is on the same level as saying something as intellectually vacant as "some people claim that Ferraris are not fast machines". Not exactly the sort of style an Encyclopaedia should be aiming for, especially on a scientific article, would you not agree?"

Also since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the rules of Wikipedia, perhaps you could point me in the direction of the rules for sources. Evidently they cannot just be anything. Ah no wait - I found the relevant part myself: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.". "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.". So you are telling me a 13 year old article by an anti-Nuclear lobby group with a membership of seven is reliable in this context, yes?

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:OR and wp:SYN, then read what you wrote: "it is a critique which attempts to show that the emboldened quote mentioned multiple times in this discussion is illogical in a scientific context." That's OR, plain and simple. As for RS, the only claim made in the article is that "X group believes Y". Are you saying that this statement isn't true? Because that's all the source is being used for. NJGW (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You don't seem to get the difference between pointing out a logical fallacy and original research unfortunately. Your dogmatic, trite reasoning is that as long as the statement is "X Group believes Y" then it is OK to include 'as is' without any qualifiers which explain in more detail exactly what it is the source is saying.

Your argument is mind-bogglingly prosaic and you have lost sight of the underlying spirit of the rules. What is in fact being done here is a twisting of the underlying source. The underlying source says:

We believe a larger emphasis on energy conservation and more investment in Solar and Wind power would be a more efficient way to cut CO2 emissions than investment in Nuclear Power.

This is not logically the same as:

We believe Nuclear Power is an [outright] inefficient way of cutting CO2 emissions.

The former is better because it provides more detail. An analogy could be a Wiki article on the Big Bang stating:

"Some scientists believe the Universe will collapse in on itself whereas others believe it will go on expanding forever".

Without any explanation as to WHY they hold that belief in terms of available empirical evidence from either side, or theoretical reasoning behind their belief for theories which are non-falsifiable.

Here's the exact quote from the source itself, did you read it?

"There are ample possibilities (for example in the area of energy savings) that are for the greater part more efficient than extra investment in new (nuclear) capacities."

We are dealing with a scientific article here on a contentious issue, it is true. We cannot start introducing beliefs into scientific articles whilst at the same time stating "Oh, it's OK, we can present contentious beliefs 'as are' without further explanation because they're just beliefs". That would be foolish in that it would set a precedent for lowering the burden of proof for inclusion of beliefs into scientific articles.

2. Then there is the seperate RS issue. I will repeat - I do not disagree with the spirit of what the source says. There is evidence that an emphasis on energy efficiency and more investment in wind and solar, could prove to be more efficient than Nuclear Power in combating CO2 emissions. However, I believe this is not a RS to present this belief.

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

"Authors generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative."

I don't believe that this WISE group does fulfil those two conditions. Their website contains no information as to who their "experienced" seven person team contains. When organisations do research, especially NGOs not affiliated to trade groups, they will usually have a page listing the bios of their members - what their academic pedigree is, what their past research work has involved, who funded or requested it etc. The Wise group webpage from what I can see contains none of this information. This is out of step with the best-practice of simmilar NGO, non trade groups in other spheres of interest, such as the internationally recognised, Institute for Fiscal Studies in the UK:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/people

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

This is a seven person team. Not enough in my opinion to be authoritative on such an important issue.

Therefore not RS.

I've got plenty of time to keep going on this but you have backed yourself into a corner and not presented any meaningful evidence to dispute my change. My change is additive - it improves the article and provides more detail, even if the source is not reliable according to the rules. If you get any scientist to look at this discussion they would invariably side with me, whichever side of the "Nuclear Power = Green" debate they were on.

How's the holiday, having fun?

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you just broke the 3 revert rule.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Peak oil for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburger

The section you keep adding is original research, period. It is unreferenced synthesis of material, mainly nutritional fact labels. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so unless you can find a reliable source that explicitly says the numbers listed, do not post that there again, or I will be reporting you for a WP:SYN violation.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also no longer watching this page, so if you respond, I won't know.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my own edits to CB. Surely that is enough to figure out, I'm busy irl, so I'm not going to be able to explain further, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]