Already answered your post to my talk page (which see). Sorry to have to revert a good faith edit like this again - more a matter of "where" than "if" it belongs. In this case with other "special uses" further down the article (always a good idea to read an article from top to bottom before editing it). We have, as I mentioned, sections further down on fractions, and on specific modern uses. A bit pressed for time or I'd have written this myself - but you're probably in a better position to do so than me anyway. This discussion, by the way, probably belongs "in public" (on the talk page for the article) will move it to there when I have a moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! We need to talk about this. Hayes' own statements are defamatory, and my entire intent was to include a defense of the people he is defaming (including some of his colleagues) by calling his statements into question. I am not intending, in turn, to defame him, so perhaps I could have worded it better. (And to be honest, I didn't know that Gawker was...ahem...a questionable source. I see your point on that now.) At any rate, I would at least like to see the statement regarding Syngenta's response reinstated, as their response is intended to defend the persons they see Hayes as defaming. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I just saw that Jytdog restored that statement. I can live with the article as it currently stands and agree it uses better (non-inflammatory) language than my version did. Thanks for bearing with me :)
Open Invitation to Discuss
This is an open invitation to Binksternet, Jytdog and any others who have interest in the Syngenta article to settle our qualms here. I honestly thought we had settled everything with this revision [[1]], as Binksternet did not initially respond to requests by Jytdog and I on Jytdog's talk page to discuss our differences when Binksternet was invited to do so. However, in my opinion, Binksternet's actions after that were uncalled for. Twice emphasizing Hayes' accusations (once on the Democracy Now show and once in the paper), a move that was unnecessary, was met by my adding more detailing Syngenta's response to those accusations. Binksternet then deleted that response 3 times - just short of the 4 times required to be guilty of edit warring, due to it being a "primary quote". (Why Syngenta cannot be quoted on a page about Syngenta is beyond me. By this rule, we ought to delete all of Tyrone Hayes' quotes from the Tyrone Hayes page.)
If Binksternet's actions had been justifiable, I would have respected them. To wit, I did not ever try to delete his comments; I only attempted to balance them. His repeated attempts to silence Syngenta's response to Hayes belies his biased view and shows that his actions were irresponsible. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any response by Syngenta should be shown to be significant. If the response is published on their website but nobody comments about it in the media, the response is not significant. The Syngenta article in Wikipedia is not a promotional organ to be used by Syngenta. Instead, it should be a balanced and neutral representation of the published opinions and facts about the company, primarily composed of third party publications. Third party sources are especially important on controversial matters. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Wiki guidelines regarding this? (Honest question; I really do not know.) If not, my opinion is that quotes by the subject of the article ought to be allowed, particularly if the Wiki article itself states "The subject stated that..." or "According to the subject...", as I did. Absence of the quote would promote bias by promoting Hayes' allegations without making any reference to the response Syngenta made. I could MAYBE see doing this on Tyrone Hayes' page, but I believe it irresponsible to silence Syngenta on Syngenta's page.
That said, I do apologize if you believe in any way I'm guilty of bias. I have been trying to balance the section so that both sides get equal airtime, and it has been motivated by what I believed to be your bias. I think it is misrepresentative to say I've tried to make this article a "promotional organ"; if I were trying to do that, I would have deleted all negative references entirely. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there has been a public media response to Syngenta's rebuttal. See for example Forbes.com (yes, it's Jon Entine) or AcademicReviews.org (Bruce Chassy). I expect more will be published in the coming weeks on both sides of the issue. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that does not negate any of the other points I've made, including a request for guidelines from Wikipedia itself governing such things. So far I've seen nothing that indicates your response regarding primary sources is anything other than your opinion. But regardless, as stated, my only intent all along has been to present an unbiased view, that gives equal footing to Hayes and Syngenta. I believe the current article comes close to doing that and I can live with it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A 'balance' is achieved not by countering negative words with the same number of positive words, but by looking at all the published third-party sources and summarizing for the reader the balance found in them. So if the published balance is against Syngenta, which is what I have seen, then the Syngenta side of the story should not be given as much coverage. See WP:NPOV, especially the WP:BALANCE paragraph, for more on the issue of achieving proper balance.
by the way, User:Binksternet, since this is a strict principle for you, we should remove ALL of the citations of Hayes' primary studies from the atrazine and syngenta articles, right? I'm actually 100% with that, as I don't think primary scientific papers should ever be cited. but my sense is that you would go ballistic if i did that. so you can drop the WP:PRIMARY stick, unless you want to actually live by it. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:MEDRS there is a very carefully crafted guideline which says that peer-reviewed scientific studies are primary sources and "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." Of course, the Syngenta website www.atrazine.com is not at all reliable for conclusions about research as it is not at all peer-reviewed. It is only reliable for the opinions of Syngenta and for uncontroversial facts. There is no parity at all between the Syngenta website and a research paper by Hayes. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the carve out in MEDRS, which is abused far too often and I fight all the time, is based on the same carveout in plain old WP:RS. In fact the bar against using primary sources is higher in MEDRS than it is in plain old RS, since biological sciences are more unpredictable. No leg, there. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, binkster, that NPOV is not about equal numbers of words. we give WEIGHT as per reliable sources. WEIGHT discussions are really hard, because how big something is in one's eyes, depends on what one looks at - not just weltanshaaung but weltbild - not just your viewpoint but the scope of the world you are viewing. for what it is worth, the vast majority of scientific studies to date support atrazine being safe enough, when used as directed blah blah blah. bink, if you have not seen them, it is because you haven't looked at the scientific and regulatory literature. if you look a lot at anti-pesticide sites then yes, i do understand that what you have seen is mostly negative. this is where wikipedia is really hard - people don't see the same worlds. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, my argument isn't about the "same number" of words; it's about stifling entirely one side of the discussion. Democracy Now did not bother to get a response from Syngenta, nor did the New York paper, nor did the huge number of blogs and environmental activists sites that have gleefully covered the interview. Responsible journalism requires that both sides at least have representation. Syngenta quite simply has not gotten the representation in the media on this issue that Hayes has, which is a clear example of bias; I therefore disagree with your argument because it is in favor of perpetuating that bias.
A few other comments: I have noted that Syngenta's response has also been covered in public media, though you have countered that those sources are suspect. I should note that Hayes himself is suspect, since his employer, Berkeley, has known financial ties to Greenpeace. Yet I have not used that point to try to stifle what Hayes has to say. Second - and you may find this hard to believe given the history here - I would have the exact same problem if the article covered only Syngenta's side of the issue. Third, you might note that I have not attempted to edit any of the other sections that make Syngenta "look bad". That is because, in my opinion, those sections adequately present both sides of the discussion. Fourth, thank you for the WP:BALANCE and WP:SECONDARY links. I am examining them now, but my initial reading of WP:BALASPS would suggest my edits were justified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By odd chance I ran into my herptologist friend today and asked him casually about atrazine, and he right away started talking about "Taylor"... but since I'm not really getting involved, I'm not going to relay his professional gossip. Just thought it weird to happen to see that guy today for first time in months.....today. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever looked at the MOA of the TIGHAR organization and its work on finding Amelia Earhart? Look up Smithsonian Curator Thomas D. Crouch's "Searching for Amelia Earhart." Invention & Technology, Volume 23, Issue 1, Summer 2007 or Richard G. Strippel's "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." Air Classics, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1995. Both researchers have very definite opinions about the TIGHAR group's single-minded pursuit of the so-called Gardner Island hypothesis/theory. The annual or semi-annual TIGHAR pilgrimages to the Nikumaroro atoll/island are undertaken by "amateur" archaeologists who pay their own way and always seem to find amazing discoveries which then fuel the next expedition to the Pacific. I was briefly a member of TIGHAR, but left when it became obvious as to their real purpose, stoking the mythology of fallen aviators. As to Rossella Lorenzi, her work is of the "Golly Gee Whiz" variety and has a garage full of Earhart discovery stories. If you wish to discuss this topic with me, send me an email, I would have sent this to you via email, but that doesn't seem possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I didn't know all of that but will gladly look into it, thanks. In the meantime I maintain that the aluminum panel at least deserves mention in the article, even if it the mention needs to be shortened, due to the widespread coverage in numerous big-name media outlets, as testified to by multiple authors' attempts to add mention of the panel to the article. I don't take issue with your further tweaking of the statement especially given your personal history but don't think it should be omitted entirely. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Lockheed Model 10 Electra (CF-TCC) at my local air museum and I have flown in it. After seeing the hubbub about a window panel being discovered, I specifically examined the starboard rear quarter to see what had to be done to cover a rear window and window opening. As far as I could see from the photograph of the piece of alcad that was discovered, it's smaller than Amelia's field modified window, and the rivet lines would not line up with the original structure at all. As far as can be seen in photographs of Amelia's Electra, there was a row of rivets around its circumference that secured the rear window on the starboard side. The most telling quote in articles about the find was that Alcoa has examined the remnant and confirmed that the type of material was an AN-13 type, first manufactured in 1943. The last word is from Ric Gillespie: “Funding is being sought, in part, from individuals who will make a substantial contribution in return for a place on the expedition team.” ..and so on it goes, P.T. Barnum said it, but it bears repeating, "a sucker is born every minute." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting information! Well, I'm happy with the current text and think we've derived a less biased, appropriately shortened, description of the topic in question. Given your significant expertise in this area I'll defer to your judgment on any further changes, so long as the panel isn't omitted entirely. And, thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christians worldwide
Hi, thanks for bringing that new source to my attention. I don't happen to have that book, so I think you should just go ahead and add the source to the article and change the number yourself. My main problem isn't so much the specific numerical value; it's that whatever numerical value we decide on has to be supported by some reliable source. In the previous version of the article, none of the four sources cited after the figure actually stated 2.4 billion, so it seemed to be a completely invented number in that context.
So yeah, if you have a book that says 2.4 billion, cite it at the end of that sentence. Problem solved.UBER(talk)19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am. However, it doesn't apply here as I attempted to contact anyone with a sizable stake in this discussion, regardless of their perspective. To wit: I also contacted Everymorning, Dialectric, Xkit, Mark Marathon, Mpslattery9, and Softlavender at the same time. You will note that many of them don't agree with my perspective. I quite literally went through the change logs of Glyphosate, Syngenta and GMOs to identify every major party that hadn't responded yet. Even so it's entirely possible I missed someone - I only scanned the last 500 changes of each. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you left comments on the Workshop page in the sections for parties. I think that you need to move those comments to the sections below, for other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Jytdog and/or JzG are topic-banned from this area, then other editors will have to step up to fill the vacuum left behind.
It that to be read as a threat? I read it as a threat to unleash more pro-industry corporate POV pushers. Did you intend it as a threat? Since Jytdog has "left", are we to expect reinforcements soon? Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rest of my comment and you'll know it's not a threat. It's clear from the larger context I'm talking about ensuring that one viewpoint does not win out. Jytdog and JzG, despite their personality issues, have done a good job of keeping the GMO articles balanced. If they are both topic banned then someone else will have to step in to keep them that way. Hopefully, whoever does step in will not take on the attitude or personality attributes that have been problematic. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 10 years and I've often seen that argument used, i.e. "If you ban so-and-so, the topic will be overrun with (Nazis, fringe scientists, conspiracy theorists, nutters, communists, anarchists, denialists, religious fanatics, you name it) and the articles will end up skewed beyond reason and Western civilization will be a risk because they won't have access to accurate information on the topic that only Wikipedia can provide." (I know I'm strawmanning what you said a little, but other people's use of the same argument followed those lines). Here's the thing, I've never seen that gloomy prediction come true. For one reason, it's because the remaining editors want to toe the line so they don't get banned either. Another reason is that the remaining editors are more willing to follow NPOV than the ones who were topic banned. The last reason is that new editors always show up at articles. Many editors are initially neutral, but if they see one side not being represented equally, they'll usually try to take that side to even things out. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68's observation has been my experience too, thankfully. Also, there is a big difference between new editors showing up and being helpful, versus new people showing up because they are secretly being recruited by industry. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are well
I saw that you said at another editor's talk page that you had been in the hospital. I'm glad that you are back, and I hope that you are now OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, apparently severe dehydration can be a VERY BAD THING when you are traveling and suddenly exposed to several sick family members. My immune system basically threw in the towel, and I got 4 infections simultaneously and couldn't hold down any food. Fortunately, while I'm still a bit weak, things are otherwise back to normal so I can start annoying people here on WP again :) Have a great New Years'! Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only Christianity-related article the other editor edited was William Lane Craig; his modus operandi was similar to one or two users I've encountered on the Jesus talk page in the last week or so, one of whom I also interacted with recently on Talk:Bart D. Ehrman. The other user has not edited for over two months since. And you've apparently never interacted with him on-wiki. So I doubt it's who you're thinking of. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yep you're right. There was one editor I've worked with frequently in the past, that I thought you had also interacted with, that might have fit that description. But clearly I was mistaken! Ah well. :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that fidget spinners are often referred to as "FS"s? The abbreviation page is not for anything that COULD be abbreviated "FS", only for those things that routinely are. Otherwise we'd have to add "Fox Sports", "fudgesicle", "Frank Sinatra", and a whole lot more. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I am interested and will take a look ASAP, but don't have much time to actually work on it due to a lot going on IRL. Stay tuned. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work
Sorry if I came across a little too strong. Never doubted your good faith, quite the contrary. I do think you may have misunderstood 3RR a little bit, but of course I may be the one having misunderstood it. Let's see what EdJohnston says at AN. In any case, I very much appreciate your constructive approach to clear things out and move forward. That's exactly the attitude we all need - keep up the good work! Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to apologize for! But, I appreciate it all the same - and, disagreements that stem from a legitimate desire to do the right thing and make WP better are fine by me. At any rate, this was a good learning opportunity, and I'm looking forward to talking it through on Christianity. Have a good one! Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution of Opinions
Incidentally, attributing an opinion does not mean giving a citation for it. It means naming the opinion-giver in the text, such as "according to Charlotte Allen, ...", in addition to a citation. Without this in-line attribution, it is an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. This is especially important in cases where different opinions are widespread. Whether a particular opinion is presented at all depends on such things as whether the opinion-giver is a recognised expert or the voice of an organization whose opinion should be mentioned. Obviously that's a case-by-case decision. Zerotalk04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please take this as the mildest possible warning to adhere to WP:NOTAFORUM. When a user goes completely off-topic, the correct reaction is to remove it. If you answer on an article talk page, even to correct the user, then you are also in a forum discussion. If you want to educate users (a very noble task in itself), the correct place is on the user's talk page, but not on the article talk page. Please note one can violate WP:NOTAFORUM while being entirely correct on the subject matter. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair; ultimately I chose to answer on Talk:Jesus because the editor in question seems to believe they are still on topic, and whether the discussion remains topical seemed unclear or at least debatable to me. Thanks and take care. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I was clarifying my argument that refusing to use BC/AD when relevant could be inadvertent or accidental bias. I am not suggesting bad faith or bad intention; I am suggesting that this simply did not occur to them. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my additional edit on the talk page makes clear what I am arguing. My apologies for wording things in such a way that may look like an accusation. I do not accuse or even intend to imply bad faith or intentional bias by any of the editors in that discussion; I have respect for all of them. The argument is that, in this case, the standard move to neutrality may in fact be unintentionally biased, in this single example. Whether anyone agrees with that is up to them; and any article not dealing with Christianity or related topics should either use BCE/CE or the respective regional or religious calendar. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is funny. Wikipedians tend to think it is ok to have false or wrong information as long as there is a reliable source/citation for that. The Elizabeth II article has that problem.
Hello! It's Avielsh. Thanks for your clarification on external links. As far as I understand, the external link was not allowed because it's not an informational resource. If so, I can exclude the link from my contribution, so it follows the guidelines. Let me know if that's OK. — Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for asking. The main concern is Wikipedia's Notability requirements, WP:N. Generally speaking, even mentioning a site such as the one you've added does not meet these requirements, whether or not you include a link to the site. If independent (that is, unpaid and unaffiliated) sites which would be considered reliable sources (WP:RS) have mentioned the site, then you are welcome to add it, along with the appropriate citation to that other site. Wikipedia has these requirements in part to keep people from adding lots of links to game articles that have some relationship to the game in question, but that people in general would not consider significant or helpful to understanding the subject. Feel free to ask questions! Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The statement is that "Others, such as N.T. Wright, have translated portions of the Bible." Keeping the statement as-is covers all other translators. Changing it to read ..."the New Testament" excludes those translators who, for example, only translated Psalms or the Pentateuch. The first statement covers the second, but not vice versa. Leaving it as-is is therefore preferred. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you think it appropriate if I added a number of other translators who translated portions, such as The Living Torah, by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and others? Pete unseth (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, in my opinion! I found the topic interesting (which is why I too got carried away) and appreciated your thoughts. I'd never heard the Universalist view before. It's just unfortunate that it violated WP rules as I'd like to continue. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did, and reverting the whole thing was the right thing to do. However, we can always discuss by email if you like. I don't often run into fellow believers who are also committed to neutrality here, so I would like keeping in touch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I understand! I haven't been nearly as active an editor as you but have found that combination to be rare also. I'm currently spending time with family but would be interested in continuing our discussions after I return home in a few days. Do you know any way to privately pass my email address to you? Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You see the top of this page where it says READ, Edit SOURCE, New Section, etc.? If you go to my talk page, click on user, and fourth under user is emailuser. It sends an email to the address I have registered with WP, and it will send me a notice. That same link isn't here for me to email you, so you must have turned it off in your preferences. Enjoy family. Time passes too quickly. Email if and when you feel like it whenever the fancy strikes. Happy New Year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you - I didn't see that option in an initial search this morning, but I may need to switch to a different view in Options (or something along those lines) to find it :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I'm sorry, but I don't have time. The reason I suggested it is that it's best for people to enact changes that will take a lot of work themselves rather than requesting that someone else do the work. You can always roll the page back to the state it was in before you started if you need to. Good luck. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
