Jump to content

Talk:Death of Eliza Jane Scovill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Eliza Jane Scovill)

[Untitled]

[edit]

Does anyone know Eliza Jane's date of birth? Whoisjohngalt (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Mohammed Al-Bayati's qualifications

[edit]

With regards to the edits over the past day, I think that while Mohammed Al-Bayati's qualifications are tangentially relevant, the purpose of the text as they are placed right now is to "prove" that Mohammed Al-Bayati is not qualified to review the autopsy report. This I think violates NPOV. If the qualifications are to be included they should come under the "criticism and controversy" section, quoted by whoever it is that accused Mohammed Al-Bayati of not being qualified to review the autopsy report is cited. If nobody made the accusations, then this is original synthesis, and should again be removed. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His lack of qualification is cited to a source that describes his qualification in the context of his report, and therefore cannot be synthesis, by definition. His lack of qualification is a necessary context for a reader of this encyclopedia article. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the reference the quoted text is not used to prove that Mohammed Al-Bayati is not qualified to review the autopsy report, hence I do not see why it is not only not synthesis, but also why it does not violate NPOV. I do not also see why his lack of qualification is a necessary context for a reader; instead they encourage a reader to distrust his findings. I don't have anything more to say about this. Requesting a third opinion. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (NPOV dispute about whether Mohammed Al-Bayati's qualifications should be included):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Eliza Jane Scovill and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The sentence in question, listing Bayati's qualifications after the mention of his name, appears unnecessary, as the fact that his report was refuted by other sources is mentioned two short paragraphs below. The listing of his qualifications at the point in the article where they are added is simply piling on negativity where none is needed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of this material removes important context (i.e. that Al-Bayati is not trained to determine cause of death). That his report has been characterized as incorrect does not convey the same information as the fact that he was not qualified to write such a report in the first place. Yobol (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Yobol. Edward321 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. First it runs a real risk of ad hominen. Al-Bayati's report should be criticized based on its contents, not its writer's qualifications. This risk of ad hominen is acknowledged in scientific rebuttals to Al-Bayati's report, such as this one: http://oracknows.blogspot.sg/2005/11/hivaids-skeptic-questions-my-honesty.html.
Second: it is not neutral because the ultimate aim of the text is, as you put it, to prove that he was not qualified to write such a report in the first place. Such an assertion requires a reference that makes that explicit accusation, not one that provides the qualifications and lets the reader come to his or her own conclusion, like the LA Times reference currently given (= synthesis). Furthermore, the article doesn't provide a list of James Ribe's qualification to prove that he is qualified to do the autopsy. This is not neutral: there is an obvious slant towards trying to discredit Al-Bayati.
If you want to keep Al-Bayati's qualifications in the article, then I would 1) delete the text where it currently is and 2) add two paragraphs later something like "Dr. Al-Bayati's qualifications to perform such an autopsy have also been questioned" and cite the oracknows link above (which would however be citing a blog - not a reliable source). In the meantime I'm going to tag the section for NPOV. Banedon (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a matter of opinion whether Bayati is qualified to render a decision or not. We, the editors of Wikipedia, are not in a position to make that call, but we are in a position to report that his report was questioned, and cite the sources that questioned the article. We can even go so far as to report why those sources questioned the report, but we, as neutral editors, cannot question the report. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, the text in our article does not come to its own conclusion about the report or his qualifications itself, but accurately presents information as presented by reliable sources regarding those issues. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By placing (and questioning) Bayati's credentials so prominently after the mention of his name (whether cited to a source or not), the article implicitly dismisses the validity of the report, making this the voice of Wikipedia making the dismissal, rather than properly attributing dismissal to a particular source (in this case The Los Angeles Times). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Ribe's qualification's are clearly stated in the article, though more detail would not hurt - he was the senior deputy medical examiner of the Los Angeles Coroner's Office.[1] Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward321: James Ribe's qualifications are not clearly stated in the article (at least not as of this version). He is described simply as the "senior coroner". And I don't see how that point is relevant as this discussion focuses on the use of excess rhetoric to deprecate Al-Bayati's findings, in violation of the WP:NPOV. Please keep the discussion focused on that issue. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What WikiDan61 said. James Ribe's qualifications are not discussed; the article does not say he graduated from which university with what degree at what level, etc. And even if these qualifications could be found, it would just make it so that the list of qualifications of both James Ribe and Al-Bayatti would be side-by-side with the reader invited to draw his or her own conclusions. However for this Wikipedia article the purpose of listing the qualifications is to prove that Al-Bayati is not qualified to write such a report in the first place, which is original research (the cited sources clearly do not make this assertion - if they did, the text would again be problematic because it intentionally leaves out the assertion). Furthermore, listing the qualifications and inviting the reader to draw his or her own conclusions, is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The fact that currently the article has Al-Bayati's qualifications but not James Ribe's violates NPOV. Two different issues, one OR and the other NPOV.
I'd be happy to write a source that directly examines Al-Bayati's qualifications and concludes that he is not qualified to write such a report in the first place into the article, if anyone can find one. This would solve the OR Synthesis part. The other, about NPOV, can be solved by moving the relevant objections to the last paragraph and phrasing it as a criticism.Banedon (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot, by definition, be original research if everything we write is found in the source. We specifically avoid coming to any conclusion not in the source, and only provide information that the high quality source itself provides. Your assertion that we, as encyclopedia, should not provide information to the reader so that they can come to their own conclusions is incomprehensible to me, to the point I do not even know how to respond to it. Our main goal is to provide information to readers.
The source itself found it necessary and important to report the qualifications of El Bayati and not of the coroner, so that is what we do too, per NPOV. If you can find a source that provides ribe's qualifications in the context of this case, bring it forward and we can add it, but I see no reason why we shouldn't give our readers what high quality sources say is an important contextual information. Yobol (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, even if a quote is taken verbatim from the source it can be OR because of WP:Synthesis. In this case either the sources make the assertion Al Bayati is not qualified to do the research, or they didn't. If they didn't make this assertion, then because the text implies that he is not qualified, it comes under WP:Synthesis. If they did make this assertion, then because it is not outright said so in the text, it becomes misrepresentation of sources. Either way the text is imperfect.
As for what kind of text is encyclopedic - we do not, e.g. in the page on the Duesberg hypothesis, provide the facts to the reader and ask him to come to his own conclusion. We provide the facts, and what experts say about the facts. Hence if there is a source that makes the claim that Al Bayati is not qualified to do the research, then the text is acceptable (once said source is linked, and moved). If there isn't such a source, the text is not acceptable. Banedon (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear now that we have very different understandings of what constitutes OR and Synth; none of what you propose appear to be even close to violations to me. I suggest that we are so far apart on this interpretation that further discussion would be talking past each other at this point. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am bringing this to the Wikipedia OR noticeboard. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories/Noticeboard

[edit]

This article was also meant to be discussed on Fringe theories/Noticeboard. VandVictory (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say that I'm rather offended not only by how the removed text is described as 'properly sourced' (if it were properly sourced, this dispute would not be happening), it goes on to describe the reason for removal as "too negative" in inverted commas. A simple Ctrl + F search of this page would reveal that nobody has used the phrase "too negative"; neither has that phrase been used in the history of the edits. Yobol, please don't put words into other peoples' mouths. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course "properly sourced" as there is a source that supports the material. While you are correct the actual phrase "too negative" is not found, that is a paraphrase of "simply piling on negativity" which can be found elsewhere on this talk page. Apologies to anyone who is offended by the paraphrase. Yobol (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I contend it is not properly sourced and comes under WP:Synthesis. What is offensive is that you, by claiming that others are trying to remove "properly sourced" contents, are indirectly claiming that you are right and everyone who disagrees is being disruptive.Banedon (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Properly sourced" as in complies with our sourcing guideline, WP:RS. At this point, I'll try not to get in the way of someone who seems to insist on being offended despite my best efforts. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]
There is consensus that the credentials be mentioned at that place, but they should say exactly what the sources say. I have removed statements that were contradicted by the sources, and the current version agrees with this consensus. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the section on the cause of death of Eliza Jane Scovill include a discussion on Mohammed al-Bayati's qualifications? For details see the discussion above. In particular the proposed alternative is to 1) move the text in the edit above to two paragraphs below where it currently is right now, and 2) phrase it instead as a criticism ("Mohammed Al-Bayati has been criticized as unqualified to perform the autopsy because ...", citing sources like this one. Banedon (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I think the information contained in the offending text is fine but the way it is currently positioned and phrased is not. At the moment the text implies that Mohammed Al-Bayati is not fit to perform the autopsy. Not having read The AIDS Conspiracy: Science Fights Back, if this source really makes the claim that Mohammed Al-Bayati is no fit the perform the autopsy, then that should be made explicit in the text. If it does not make this claim, then it comes under WP:SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, since the text does not list James Ribe's qualifications, this violates WP:NPOV.
The material in the text is usable, but not in this way. I advocate removing the offending sections to a later paragraph, and phrasing it as a criticism ("Mohammed Al-Bayati has been criticized as unqualified to perform the autopsy because ..."), utilizing sources such as this one that explicitly claims Mohammed Al-Bayati is not qualified to do the autopsy. Banedon (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is, by definition, NOT WP:SYNTH (a single source discusses Scovill, Bayati's report, and Bayati's qualifications or lack thereof together, and we do not come to any conclusion that the source does not). While I would suggest it is obvious from the qualifications that he is not fit to perform any forensic report, we do not explicitly say so because none of our sources say so. It is clear and obvious to me that his qualifications are relevant and important context, and should be included for readers to decide. Yobol (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned here. The two comments above state the two sides of the argument clearly. This is not a vote so I'm not sure what else I can contribute? BoonDock (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Present your interpretation of which of the above is the more appropriate interpretation of the relevant guidelines and policies. While consensus is !voting, establishing which intpretation has consensus is aided by outside input as to which is a better interpretation. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Remove. I support the concepts expressed in the discussion presented above that WP:OR and WP:NPV are violated by including. BoonDock (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I suppose the assessment of his qualifications should be cited to various writers on the subject, but it is not at all hard to find those who list out his qualifications and assess them as insufficient, as well as pointing out his denialist advocacy. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually what I want to do (see my response above). I see the description of the RfC is not particularly good and doesn't illustrate what the dispute is about. I'm going to amend it. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of it - summoned by bot. Al-Bayati is not a coroner, pathologist nor even a medical doctor, and additionally, he subscribes to the same theories. These are facts that should be included. I don't know that the part about his work being judged as "pseudoscience" is necessary and I think this should be removed. Additionally, James Ribe IS a medical doctor and licensed coroner - this is obvious based on the mention of him being the senior coroner/medical examiner. His qualifications are clear. If you want to list that he is a forensic pathologist as well, no problem. Wikimandia (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not SYNTH and it is valid for WP:YESPOV. The solution to a balance problem is to add alternative views, not remove sourced factual information. Rhoark (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliably sourced and clearly relevant as established by reference to those sources. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eliza Jane Scovill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eliza Jane Scovill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eliza Jane Scovill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Eliza_Jane_Scovill&oldid=1195419980"