User talk:JzG/Archive 119

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

→

Archive 125

"Science doesn't care who owns a technology, only whether it works"

I've refrained from responding to this in the ArbCom case thread, but I can't let it pass entirely without comment. It is, to put it bluntly, as crass an example of unthinking technocratic dogmatism as I would ever expect to come from someone with whom I am more often than not in agreement. Science doesn't 'care' about who owns GMOs - but it didn't care who owned Zyklon B either. Science (or at least, the natural sciences - we'd best not get into discussions about what if anything the social sciences have to say on the matter) isn't about 'caring' about anything. The natural sciences are simply irrelevant when one is discussing issues beyond their remit - which self-evidently includes people making personal choices over their lifestyles, of which diet is a significant constituent part. You can argue that science provides no grounds for excluding GMOs from a diet - but you cannot argue that science is 'in favour' of GMOs. Such choices may be informed by science, but the decision will be made by individuals with concerns that science simply has nothing to say on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Godwin's Law aside: science did not care who developed Zyklon B. It was developed as a pesticide - and it worked as such. The GMO dispute is absolutely about the demarcation between science and politics. The problem is not that the science advocates are trying to use science to beat down politics, but the other way round, with anti-GMO editors trying to insert fringe and even fraudulent science in order to portray GMOs as hazardous to health. There are very many reasons why one might be wary of GMOs, but health is not one of them.

They are if anything better than non-GM crops, in that they can be grown with less pesticide and are less likely to decay in the distribution chain, with potentially hazardous decay products. I have seent he anti-GM editors accusing science advocates of being shills for Monsanto. I have never seen a science advocate calling an anti-GM activist a shill for anything, but perhaps you can show me an example. Science is neither in favour of GMOs nor against the, it is simply a tool for testing claims of safety. Thus far, they have all passed (blatantly fraudulent faux-science like Séralini can safely be ignored).

Thus the question for the science advocate is not whether they are safe, but whether the economics and ethics stack up. If farmers in the developing world can grow more food with less water, and if that contributes to a reduction in starvation, or if they can grow rice with vitamins fixed, and that can reduce incidence of blindness in children, why would that be bad? So far the major objection I see is "because Monsanto". That's not a logical argument.

This is the problem, you see: one side is against GMOs, the other is in favour of accurate science and ideologically neutral on GMOs. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps neutrality might be better served by not describing people as 'fundamentalists'. I'm no fan of most of the anti-GMO crowd myself, but I don't think that much is to be gained by using such emotive labels - their position has a great deal of popular support, and being wrong about the science doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to lose the political debate. A debate which is driven by non-scientific issues you seemed to be trying to dismiss at ArbCom - though I note you have since expanded on your statement. If your intention is that Wikipedia should present science as genuinely neutral on GMOs - as being able to inform the debate, but in no position to 'decide' anything regarding their use - then there is no problem as far as I can see. But that isn't the impression I was getting. And I note that you seem to be somewhat inconsistent regarding scientific neutrality, in that you suggest that 'science advocates' should be looking into the 'economics and ethics' of the question. So they should - but so should everyone else, as neither economic nor ethical questions can be answered through the methodology of the natural sciences. Science has it limits, and this subject goes way beyond them, whether those involved in the current Wikipedia debate acknowledge it or not - and proper coverage of the topic requires that we don't restrict article subject matter to the narrow confines of the current debate. It deserves more than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you Andy. Policy and risk management are not scientific activities per se. They need to be informed by sound science for sure, or things go all to hell, and they need to be communicated to the public well, and made in dialogue with the public, for sure. But neither = science. One of the biggest reasons that Europe's GM crop/food policies are so different, is that the public there was really spooked by recent food scares in a way the US public wasn't. This is an old but useful source explaining that. The actual approval of GM crops and food is not that different in the US and EU - what gets approved, is the same. What is different is the food labelling and where can crops can be grown, each of which are more policy decisions, not science decisions per se.Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But some of them are fundamentalists. Séralini is one, and those who cite him are also fundamentalists, as are those who oppose the use of golden rice. The problem is largely one of the fallacy of false middle. Science has a neutral POV on the safety of GMOs, but stating that the evidence shows them to be safe is interpreted as being "pro-GMO" and thus at an opposite end of the spectrum to anti-GMO. That's wrong because discussions of the science don't touch on ethics or regulation, and a good number of those who support the science, have a distinctly ambivalent view of companies like Monsanto and are fully comfortable with the idea of regulation and stringent monitoring. The most extreme pro-GMO fundamentalists are free-market libertarians, a group for whom I have little time. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful to identify a few aspects of the debate that fall into different categories. The attempt to classify and label genetically engineered food as somehow different than other kinds of food is a political minefield that extends through the organic food labeling movement. The problem is that we have people who are involved in agriculture and in food production who have very particular ideological perspectives on what it means to have an "organic" or "pesticide free" or "GMO-free" food which are not informed by empirical facts associated with the foods or food production themselves, but rather with a fetishization of "natural" or "not made in a lab" ingredients and processes. After the fact, it may be possible to identify empirical tricks to generally figure out whether certain preconceived identifiers are there or not, but at the end of the day the labeling movements are fraught precisely because there is no empirical test that can distinguish whether a tomato that's been genetically engineered with a certain trait is somehow different than one that's been bred using traditional horticulture methods for that same certain trait. The raw estimative math is somewhat interesting to do as an exercise, but it turns out that while it's difficult, it would be possible using certain clever methods to mimic genetic engineering using certain ludicrous and unnecessarily intense methods of traditional horticulture. If such is possible, how can a label be truthfully applied to a product that the food is "genetically modified"? This is where the politics enters into the question. Ultimately, the argument by the anti-GMO activists simply is not scientific no matter how much they protest that it is. Unfortunately, we have a name for that, "pseudoscience".

It is possible, mind you, to be opposed to Monsanto and corporate agriculture and not adopt this line of reasoning, but so far that's not what the anti-GMO movement has decided to do. It's too bad because that's part of the reason they're losing the battle. I do blind taste tests of food from time to time and often find that vegetables grown on smaller farms taste better than vegetables grown on larger farms. If some of those local farms adopt certain crazy ideas of, say, biodynamic agriculture, I will roll my eyes and argue with the farmer that they are being needlessly ideological, but if the food tastes good and there isn't anything else available, it's basically getting pissed off because of someone's religion. I wouldn't shy away from halal butchers or from kosher delis just because I think their food laws are arbitrary. So, yes, there is an additional aspect of this question which is broader than science. The issue is that most imams are not advocating that we say that non-halal meat is environmentally damaging and unhealthy according to studies published in the Journal of Islamic Science. Get my drift?

jps (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly in line with my understanding. By abusing the scientific arguments the anti-GMO lobby forfeits the ability to engage productively on those areas where reasonable people may disagree, and which may well be a legitimate focus for regulation. GMO labelling is simply a manifestation of chemophoia - let's hope these folks never realise how much DHMO is in their food. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Secrets of the Last Nazi

Hey, just giving you a head's up. I have a strong suspicion that Secrets of the Last Nazi might have been created as part of a paid editing ring. I don't want you to delete the article history right now, since I'll need it as evidence if/when I bring this up at ANI and SPI. If I can weed through the author's article and find enough good sources, I'll try to write a new version of the article. If/when that happens, I was wondering if you'd be willing to delete the article history for the book to discourage recreation of the article to the puffery laden version. If sourcing was ever provided to give the book notability, it'd have to be TNT'd anyway because of the various issues with the sources, which are many. (A lot of misrepresented sources, bad sourcing, etc) Just giving you a head's up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised, thanks for the heads-up. I can protect the redirect if you need me to. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Whap!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

- for this insult calling an editor an idiot within a criticism. Cheers. Doc talk 08:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that I dind't call him an idiot, I described the incredible lameness of the dispute as idiocy. Which it is. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiki Page

Hello JzG,

You recently deleted a page that I was working on and I would like to know the reason why. Also if this deletion was by mistake I ask that the page please be restored so that I can continue to work on it.

Thank you 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)JaytheBeard24 (talk)JaytheBeard24

Your account has zero deleted contributions and this is the only edit you have ever made to Wikipedia with this account. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The page I was working on I didn't have a login at the time and didn't realize I needed one. The page itself is Oscar Dowdell-Underwood. The page only list accomplishments and history of the person. The page by no means goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. I ask that this page be restored. JaytheBeard24 (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)JaytheBeard24

A fan page with no reliable sources and packed with WP:PEACOCK terms. A horrible article, and justly tagged as such (a problem in itself for a biography). We are better off without it. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Energy Catalyzer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that if you are uncomfortable with me as a mediator because of past interactions, I have no problem at all with that and will gladly turn the case over to another DRN volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Koch "truther" accounts

While I have no opinion in the articles about the Koch family and their dealings, I do think you should be aware that that account tied into the AN/I thread and other things on the site is tied to Daily Kos, who flat out admit to operating these accounts. I am tempted to file an SPI to see if there are any other accounts hiding out there, as I would not be surprised if that was the case, especially since they seem to have an agenda of making sure that his criticisms are known, and are complaining about anyone who removes their work, instead of trying to fix it to make it work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. There is a strong whiff of off-wiki collusion here, if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia autobiography

Guy, as someone like myself with a computer background, could you spare a few moments to say whether this article justifies its space on Wikipedia? It appears to me to be the ultimate ego trip and a waste of time reading. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. JRPG (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Access to medical sources through The Wikipedia Library

Hi Guy, thanks for your interest in various medical sources available from The Wikipedia Library. We need some responses from you to process your requests:

1. I have just sent you an email for DynaMed with a form to fill out
2. I sent you an email regarding Royal Pharmaceutical Society about 2 weeks ago and have not yet got a response - let me know if you didn't get it (it does sometimes end up in spam)
3. For Cochrane Library, there is a form linked from the top of the page to fill out so that your details are passed along to them

We're working on a method to streamline our application process, but for the moment we've still got a lot of forms. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Mum is moving house, you know how it is! I have the emails and will reply this weekend. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, just ping me when it's all done and I can run everything through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping, add BMJ to the list. Just a head's up that you're currently signed up for one of our last remaining accounts in the Cochrane allotment - we do have people waitlisted so I don't want to hold that for too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, please drop me off, work has just ramped up again. Bah! Guy (Help!) 17:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

user page

would you consider making at least a blank user page so that links to your name are not red? When I just replied to your comment, I saw the redlink, and then had to double check that I didn't put a typo into your name. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's deliberate. I have reasons. One day I might have a user page again but the redlink is useful to me at present. Ping me on Lync and I'll tell you why. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't ping you on Lync anymore, my entire office was laid off and the work sent to China/Russia :( Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It was somewhat predictable. My office was part of the Quest acquisition. My office had overlap with other efforts in Dell, and then when it went private again it was only a matter of time before the redundancy became a profit issue. And my office makes like 3x per capita than the russian group that we compete with did... Its a bit ironic though, because my office was regularly held out in the software group as a model to follow, we had the most patents approved in the entire software division etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(tps) Sorry to hear about the layoff, Gaijin42 :( NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I recovered fine, they gave me 2 weeks of employment, plus a bunch of severance, and I had a new job with better pay lined up before my two weeks were over. In effect it was a big bonus because of the severance. I paid off all of my credit cards and some back due taxes :) Unfortunately the same cannot be said for a good number of the other 40 or so laid off :( Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about deleted page: Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist)

Hi JzG, You recently deleted a draft article I was working on: Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist). This is my first article, and I have been learning along the way with the various admin suggestions, so I was surprised when instead of getting feedback (or approval), the page was simply gone. Looking at Wikipedia's documentation, I can't even access my old draft to make any more edits. Had I known this was a possibility, I would have saved my work locally. If I'm reading your reason correctly, you felt that my article was some sort of veiled advertising; I’m sorry you felt that way, as that is far from my intentions.

I would love the chance to continue editing my article, until it meets Wikipedia's standards, as I truly believe the subject of my article is noteworthy, and would contribute to the Wikipedia knowledgebase. Is there any way to either get a copy of my most recent draft, or to be able to continue editing my article?

Thanks for your time, and please feel free to give me feedback! I'm eager to become a better writer and editor. Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephcotten.global (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest means that you are not neutral on this subject. Submission has been declined 7 times as obviously promotional and failing to adequately establish importance, (possibly some kind of record), you have done pretty much nothing to learn Wikipedia, this is the sole topic to which you've even tried to make any meaningful contribution, and I see no admin suggestions at all, not one comment on your talk page that I can see has been left by an admin. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist) RfC

I'm not sure I understand this comment or the dispute you are having with the IP on talk:Shaun King (activist), but your wording choice seems inflammatory. Please consider redacting. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP is defending bigots. The IP can, bluntly, fuck off. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please undo your RfC close

Dear JzG/Guy, i write to ask you to undo your closing of the RfC on the Monsanto legal cases page here. I had requested for an editor who is uninvolved and neutral on the topic to do the closing for a good reason, and i see from your edit history that you are not neutral on the whole cluster of controversies that involves Monsanto and GMOs and glyphosate and the like, from some recent edits of yours. I hope you will do this. I've been advised that asking you to undo your close is the first step in the process. SageRad (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Although certainly it would be better to have someone uninvolved close, the RFC result is extremely lopsided. RFCs are "not a vote" and the weight of the arguments are supposed to carry, but when the !votes are so heavily skewed one would need to show very serious deficiency in the arguments in order to overturn. OFC you are always free to appeal, but I am going to suggest that you are likely not going to get far in this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no involvement with Monsanto, as far as I can tell. Feel free to request review at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, could you answer the questions raised about the language of the close on the Talk:Monsanto legal cases#Closure of RfC questions section? Clarifying your statement might make AN unnecessary.Dialectric (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of verbiage there, feel free to identify any specific point I have left unaddressed with my latest comment. It may take a while to respond now, it's 00:28 here and I have work tomorrow. You're welcome to take it to AN regardless, I rarely object to independent review of anything I do here. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of verbiage on the page. To distill, here are 3 questions which would clarify the close:

1.what do you mean by "molehill mountaineering" in your closure comment? What do you see as being the mountain/molehill in this case? It is unclear to me.

2. Per Tsavage, "national level" coverage is an unclear inclusion standard. This wording does not appear in WP:N or several other relevant policies that I looked through. Can you clarify what you mean by this?

3. I don't see any issues with failing to adhere closely to WP:V, WP:RS in the rfc. Why have you specifically mentioned these policies in your close? Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI followup

Don't know whether I pinged you or not (because your username page doesn't exist - does that result in a ping nevertheless?). Anyway it was on user talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Ok, IHTS (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a redlink works fine. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editing

Hi Guy. MyTuppence‎ has repeatedly removed a ref improve tag from H. Montgomery Hyde without explanation or resolution of the problem. Most of the article is clearly unsourced. After the last reversion he posted a warning for improper placement of maintenance tags on my talk page. I had also placed two on his for the improper removal of tags, which he has since deleted. After a brief and frank exchange on my talk page, and at his request, I posted to him on the talk page of the article. As of this posting, he has not replied. Out of deference to 3RR I am not restoring the maintenance tag. But this seems about as clear cut as one can get. He has offered no defense for his persistent removal of the tag. Your assistance in this would be much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I think this is heading to ANI in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for a review of your closure of an RfC at Monsanto Legal Cases

Hello. I have requested here for an uninvolved editor to review your closure of the RfC that you closed here because you are an involved party to the controversy, and you refused to voluntarily undo your closing of the RfC when requested on the 15th of September, here. This is simply notification that there is a discussion that partly involves you on the Administrator's Noticeboard. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I invited you to do in the first place. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 05:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA

Please remove the SPA accusation. While I have edited e-cigs a lot. A look at my editing history will show that I am a very active editor. E-cigs are an interest of mine, but I have also created articles on glass, and closed 175 RFC's. SPA has a very negative light to it. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the SPA accusation, I will state this would seem to be something to bring up in your Evidence section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I accept your point and will rephrase. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. AlbinoFerret 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, only after editors said he was a SPA he quickly started to edit other topics. QuackGuru (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Saw your initial Evidence assertion, which I know you're still working on. Just thought I should point out you misspelled it "glyphosphate" multiple times. Don't want anyone thinking you don't know what you're talking about, after all :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, sorted, thanks. Cursed colonials with their spelling issues! Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)