Talk:Human equivalent

Questions about notability, references

This term has only a few Google references which are relevant to the subject matter. How is the gardening book relevant to this article? I hope someone can improve this article, because I am doubtful that it is useful or notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question.. and I think this may be the answer Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and maybe this Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. User User:Granitethighs created the article and it looks as pretty much a product placement for the book he published... which he published about the same time his editing activity started on Wikipedia *Cross, R. & Spencer, R.D. 2009. "Sustainable Gardens". CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. Here is a google hit for this article now http://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27Cross%2C+R.+%26+Spencer%2C+R.D.+(2009).+Sustainable+Gardens.+Collingwood%2C+Australia%3A+CSIRO+Publishing&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS314US314 - This other article was originated also by GraniteThigh again seemingly as a vehicle of promotion on Wikipedia possibly also [1] - Here is the discussion there Talk:Sustainable gardening

Since he is one of two authors here it seems [2] I think there is a problem. What do you suggest Dthomsen8? The same book was also used on multiple articles worked on by this user on Wikipedia Sustainability being another. skip sievert (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, since this is a problem for more than one editor, delete it, fine by me. Granitethighs (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Human equivalent dose

The article might be improved by being broadened to include the use of the concept of "human equivalent" in other contexts - e.g. "human equivalent dose" (HED) - see here. No time to do this now - but I'll return to this if no one beats me to it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice thought to save the article but human equivalent dose is a totally different thing altogether - maybe it is fine under that specific title (HED) but not simply changing the content and keeping the same name. Granitethighs (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a concept called "human equivalent", and it occurs in a number of contexts, including the one outlined in this article and the probably better-known HED one. An article on "human equivalent" is a good idea, and it should cover the range of contexts in which that concept is used. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, let's see it. Granitethighs (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding a prolonged edit war (I do not have time to pursue this) I have, as recommended by Snalwibma, converted this article to the "medical" rather than energetic sense of this expression. Granitethighs (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That being the case it would make sense to properly title it then. The actual title would be human equivalent dose... other wise it is only a strange orphan, born of a partial phrase. Please also rename the article then for clarity... or it seems like it would be pretty much worthless as a encyclopedic entry. skip sievert (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Using this talk page for discussion

Skip, please before removing key text in the article discuss your intentions on this talk page. This is standard part of Wikipedia etiquette, general consideration, and being civil. See [3] Your deletion of a key reference was based on a long WP:COI investigation which concluded that there was no case for COI. Please observe this finding unless others are in agreement with you. Based on this finding your deletion was out of order. If your arguments are rejected [or ignored], bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. Granitethighs (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What? You originated an article, based on a phrase from somewhere. You reffed your book on Gardening to something completely abstracted from it... and the whole article was nearly ditched [4]. You placed your book (SG>Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2) in what looked like a purely Wikipedia:VSCA way in the article to completely disjointed material. And... you told no one, so in effect you not only concealed it you made it impossible for others to even know the dynamic of what you did. It only came out after the fact, and by accident. skip sievert (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of this section again: this time more carefully. Granitethighs (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This term has only a few Google references which are relevant to the subject matter. How is the gardening book relevant to this article? I hope someone can improve this article, because I am doubtful that it is useful or notable. And... yes... I do believe that you are spamming your book here in the links as you did here also [5] and yes it shows up here now and that makes it a high value link to you the author [6] skip sievert (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, please stop making this accusation of spamming and assume good faith. Your claim that using a book as a reference is some sort of "high value link" patently absurd. The fact that you don't understand something is not a reason to conduct a vendetta against another editor who is acting in good faith. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reference

A reference has been removed, with the comment "Do not add this gardening book again. There is no connection what so ever to the subject." Has the editor who removed this actually checked the book in question? I do not have access to it, so I won't reinsert the reference, but I was happy to take it on trust that the book does refer to the concept. Can anyone settle this matter? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed the section heading to Human energy conversion which is appropriate. There is not sustainability aspect to this article... that was a misnomer. The book ref may have been used by a new and inexperienced editor, to reference something. It is a fact that the editor also published the book [7] and [8] across multiple articles. This calls in question the author product placing their commercial book... which is very expensive to buy. No doubt a book actually about science aspects of energy connected with human energy output (science or physics related) would be appropriate for a citation... or just cross connect the wiki art. that deals with human energy conversion... there is one.

That gets rid of the c.o.i. real or perceived aspect in the article. The originator of the article informed no one they authored the book until it was revealed. That gave no one a chance to debate the merits of the link in context as an appropriate source for this article. It was a stub and now is not one. It does not need the previous ref. The article was very nearly deleted because of its lack of meat and bones before. Using a gardening book is not sensible in this context as a ref/note. skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that does not address the issue. Does the book in question contain a reference to "human equivalent"? If so, it may well be worth referencing. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed the section heading to Human energy conversion which is appropriate. There is not sustainability aspect to this article... that was a misnomer. The book is newly published and was inserted by the author. How is it that a known reference/note is not preferable? This one contains baggage... lots of baggage. I will find a better one. One from a known source that can be clicked on... instead of believed. skip sievert (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Books are better references than websites, and books published by major scientific institutions are about as good a reference as you can get. I'm restoring the reference, and Skip please stop this vendetta. The baggage is all yours. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Direction of article

It really does not make sense to focus on energy in this article and the title here is problematic. I suggest this particular article gets renamed Human equavalent dosing or dosage, or something like that, and then it can keep a focus. Putting the other information into it just does not work... where does it stop as to focus..?. we could just as easily add something like this [9] about cats, or this about eyes [10] and on and on. - skip sievert (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you have against that book, and why you are so determined to keep it out! But I think there is a perfectly reasonable short article to be written on the term "human equivalent" and how it occurs in different contexts (something like this version). Yes, if the term occurs in discussions of cats' ages or photography, by all means mention those contexts too. And if the book you so heartily dislike does indeed refer to the concept, then why not reference it? You seem to be determined to delete the reference, and all your editing seems to be directed to that end. What on earth is the problem? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The person that originated the article had this to say on this subject and suggested that the article be changed to one thing that being medical.

Nice thought to save the article but human equivalent dose is a totally different thing altogether - maybe it is fine under that specific title (HED) but not simply changing the content and keeping the same name. Granitethighs (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) end quote. I have, as recommended by Snalwibma, converted this article to the "medical" rather than energetic sense of this expression. Granitethighs (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC) end quote Granitethighs. I suggest that the article focus on something. Since google hits give an overwhelming medical definition that revolves around human dosing that would probably be a good idea as to focus. It should probably focus somewhere as there is no logical connection with cats, or energy, or dosing etc.. and putting it in a category would probably not even work. Human equivalent dose now redirects here, so that should clear up content issues also. But, it would make sense to have that as the actual article title and not just a redirect. skip sievert (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not unusual to have an article that covers two senses of a term. But the problem seems to stem from an editing dispute on Sustainability. It appears to me that Granitethighs backed down on this article because of pressure from Skipsievert, and that is not right. Skipsievert needs to start assuming good faith. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You assume too much. skip sievert (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So this debate has nothing to do with your editing? --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of human energy equivent infomation

Please stop trying to delete sourced text, especially as that text was the subject of a failed AFD. That is simply trying to achieve an article deletion by the back door, and amounts to vandalism. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are talking about here.. but there is no connection to my editing the article and your assumptions. skip sievert (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there? --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so much... no. I suggest you google the term (human equivalent) and see what you get as to human equivalent dose which is the redirect article here and most of the present title also. This falls into categories like this Categories: Measurement | Medical terms | Metabolism | Chemistry... and that improves the article then with information. Deleting the categories as you have done to that information does not really serve the project here. Also the lead was not done in accord with guidelines before. skip sievert (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article information

Deleting information that is sourced and now focused is probably not a good idea. The article was at cross purposed before. The lead area is not supposed to look as the old article looked. This is the wrong kind of article to make into a hodge podge of info. Google the term and see what you get. skip sievert (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In that it suits your aims against other editors on this page? --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Recurring, disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.

This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse. So if you have issues... do not proceed by making personal attacks such as calling other editors vandals and such [11], or ascribing theories about editors motivations that involve the kind of language you are using M.J. - If you have issues with content the above methods are the ones suggested. You are using an old version of the article which I mostly did, and complaining as I am improving the article by evolving it. skip sievert (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just improved the article information by reverting to this version – (1) because I fail to see why deleting one whole area in which the term is used can be counted as improving the article, and (2) because basing the core of the article on "common sense" and "plausible assumptions" (as in this version) is a clear breach of WP:NOR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As said google the term. You have deleted the new categories and other related information. The term is not used the way the article has used it as to heading... The person that originated the article suggested I have, as recommended by Snalwibma, converted this article to the "medical" rather than energetic sense of this expression. Granitethighs (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ... as I believe they thought pursuing a course like that being pursued recently was not such a good idea. "human equivalent" is a phrase so the article was misnamed originally. The redirect "human equivalent dose" comes here now though. People so far have not really argued points here. skip sievert (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert – There are three issues here. (1) You seem for some reason to be determined to delete any reference to a particular book, and to deny the use of the term "human equivalent" in the field to which it relates. Why? (2) Your inclusion of your own personal take on "common sense" and "plausible assumptions" is quite inapprorpiate in a WP article. (3) What the person who originated the article thinks is beside the point. This article is not owned by him, any more than it is owned by you or by me. It is a collaborative venture. My take on it is that it makes perfect sense to have an article on the varied meanings and uses of the term human equivalent. Why not? Please discuss. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snalwibma. What I disagree with is properly sourced material being removed from an article for no good reason. What Google says is irrelevant, if we have a reliable source it is appropriate to include even a very obscure meaning of a term, after all that is what readers turn to an encyclopaedia for. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Is it a reliable source though? It certainly is not a good source from a Gardening book apparently that can not be gone to, that is reason enough for finding better sourcing. I found a better source and replaced the source in contention. Also, the Watt article is now connected and that is a great and easy source now to go to. This one can be clicked on and gone to, as can be the other one used for sourcing and the biking source also... and does not cost $60.00 to access. Free is better. It is plain and simple... and does not contain any baggage. It can be noted that the original link was placed by the person that wrote the book mentioned. This raises questions.... does it not? Was it product placed to encourage book sales? Would this be controversial etc... -?-- The current link does not raise any issues such as this. Also since the article is now open to all sorts of human eq. I have added a couple and will look for more. I suggest a long list of them now be added... Maybe we could have a section of eq. in the article for convenience, with links... and add to that for simplicity sake. skip sievert (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says a book on sustainable gardening cannot be a reliable source? Especially when published by one of the world's foremost scientific organisations. As for your comment "This raises questions.... does it not?", only in your mind. There is nothing in WP policies about including publications by Wikipedia editors as sources, so long as they are reliable. And as you freely admit here this is the very best source. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The person that sourced that bit of information removed it from several articles now. [12] because of the real or perceived aspect of product placing.... G.T., When I inserted them I was not aware of another reference that would do the job I wanted. That no longer seems the case. As has been openly discussed,copies of the book were sent to editors of the article...,I am removing the references for everyone's peace, and to expedite the completion of the article for assessment ... not as an acknowledgement of any kind of malpractice. excerpt from statement by author of book.

Lets just drop the link. It can not be gotten at. I found information that can be clicked on. Keep in mind that it was not me that brought up the questioning of this link in the first place. Another editor did. Questions about notability, references -- This term has only a few Google references which are relevant to the subject matter. How is the gardening book relevant to this article? I hope someone can improve this article, because I am doubtful that it is useful or notable. -- end quote from above... DThomsen8 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC) skip sievert (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. it is a reliable sourse, so I am including it. Books are much better references than websites, that can be changed overnight. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. It is originally a product placed spam source, or so it very well seems or could be seen that way. The person that put it on has taken it off elsewhere, and did you also receive a free copy of the book as other editors have [13]? So I took it off.

Books, are not much better references than websites,... is it your theory that they are? Could you show me in the guidelines where that is said? Actually that is kind of a pointless statement and has no bearing on issues here. This is a science website [14], it is not a book. It is considered a great source. I rest my point. skip sievert (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced information from article

Edit summary by Snalwibma... (remove ill-sourced and irrelevant material - and reinstate reference) end quote... before you remove sourced information could you discuss? How is the information irrelevant? It is information on Human Equivalent... correct?... [15] Are you and the other editor forming an editing team to control the article now? If you are what is the purpose and point of it, and what do you hope to achieve with not allowing others to edit or expand the article? skip sievert (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The source you quoted happens to include the words "human equivalent" but I'm not convinced it's really about the concept. It says that chimps are stonger than humans, weight for weight. Is this a "human equivalent" concept? That is not the sense in which those two words occur there. Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe it could be included, but I certainly don't think it's a good idea to keep adding sections, with each devoted to a separate minor comparison between humans and other animals. What next? A paragraph on centipedes saying that in human-equivalent terms they equal 50 bipeds? If the chimp-strength stuff is worth including (and I'd be more convinced if there was a source that used the term directly in relation to assessing the strength of the animal), perhaps the best way of doing so would be to rename the cat/dog years section (something like "Animal attributes expressed in human-equivalent terms"?) and expand its scope so that it covers a range of comparisons (life spans of pets, strength of apes, height of a flea's jump?), each with a good source. One other point - it's a bit rich to criticise others for removing sourced information when you yourself keep remving a perfectly good reference. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you are trying to make a point about not making the article more filled with Human equivalent ideas? The focus of the article now is making human comparisons...equivalents, with other animate and inanimate things. skip sievert (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am quite happy to see the article extended to cover a whole range of "human equivalent" ideas. But I do not think it's a good idea to have each minor aspect of comparing animal and human attributes picked out with its own heading. I think it would be much better to have (say) three top-level headings covering (a) drug/chemical doses, (b) comparisons with other animals, (c) energy use. And if the animal-comparison section is extended, it should be based on sources that actually use the idea (and preferably the term) of human equivalence. The trouble with your paragraph about apes is that (1) the stuff about DNA is completely irrelevant; (2) the source on chimpanzee and human strength makes no use of the idea of human equivalence in comparing the strength of the two animals, it simply says thst chimps are stronger, weight for weight, so that to say that a chimpanzee "has twice the strength of a human equivalent" misrepresents it; (3) placing it first gives it undue weight. Also, as you will have gathered, I am not happy with your continued efforts to delete a perfectly good reference that deals with an otherwise uncovered aspect of human equivalence. I am therefore (again) reverting your latest change. But I would welcome an extension of the section on cats and dogs to cover a range of animal attributes expressed in human-equivalent terms, as long as it can be based on good sources. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly you and your partner seem to act contrariwise to new information and do not seem interested in cooperative editing. If the above is true... then how is it that you did not make constructive changes in order to improve the information? skip sievert (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) There happens to be another editor who often seems to agree with me, but that does not mean we are in any sense partners. (2) Cooperative editing is exactly what I am trying to achieve, and one of the things I am doing to this end is to make suggestions here. (3) A constructive change does not necessarily mean adding information to the article. The removal of poor information and editing the text are also constructive contributions. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If you'll check it, you'll find that consensus is achieved when there is general agreement. I do not agree that you are improving the article with your deletions and your partners deletions, that you both reinforce... and it appears that you have assumed ownership of the article along with your partner... if the edit history is any indicator. skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I am very happy to engage in substantive discussion of the content of the article, and to that end I have made a number of suggestions. If all that comes back is "I do not agree" and accusations that I am in league with another editor and assuming ownership, then I don't know how to proceed. But why can't we reach general agreement? I have made my comments and suggestions. Let's hear yours. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)