User talk:Tuckerresearch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Chronology (Rohl)[edit]

Since you’re a very experienced editor I’m going to assume that you’re already aware that the burden is on the editor who adds or restores material. You restored material to New Chronology (Rohl), now justify its inclusion. I’m particularly interested in why you think that a section on Rohl’s reception in Egyptology should include four block quotes of Pierce Furlong attacking Kenneth Kitchen, and why David Rohl is permitted to “refute” radiocarbon dating. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First, in my opinion, you are mischaracterizing the issues. Perhaps the block quotes can be pruned, but I would not call them "attacks" on Kitchen. And mentioning Rohl's views on certain aspects of radiocarbon dating (not the method as a whole, but how it is calibrated to tree rings, etc.) is not "permitting him to refute" it. Rohl, a published author, ABD, and television presenter is not WP:FRINGE on par with Velikovsky or Sitchin. And even if he were, discussion of their theories on their pages is not, I believe, WP:COATRACK. (Wikipedia's readers want to find out about everything, fringe or not. As long as we're not WP:SOAPBOX.) That's my opinion, and, I think, the WP:CONSENSUS of editors on/of the David Rohl webpage. Second, nice tactic: wholesale remove 8,000+ characters of material you don't like and then put the onus on others to justify its inclusion (rather than you having to advocate removal or work with editors on a talkpage). TuckerResearch (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

“nice tactic”[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

We’re done here. Explain your position to Dougweller and I’ll discuss it with him. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Attack"? Hardly. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tucker, I’m not having a conversation with someone who makes personal attacks because he doesn’t like WP:ONUS. Explain your argument to Dougweller, and then I’ll talk it over with him. If you refuse to have a civil discussion about the material you inserted then you can hardly accuse me of warring should I remove it again. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Unidentifiable IP Person, apparently you are having a conversation with a vicious "personal attacker."
(1) "Nice tactic" is not a personal attack as I am not attacking you as a person, I am addressing your actions and arguments. If I had said, "You are a poopy face," that's a personal attack. I am wary and tend not to take seriously editors whose first response when challenged is "Oh! I was cruelly and brutally attacked!"
(2) You are misinterpreting WP:ONUS. (Oh no! I must be personally attacking you!) WP:ONUS refers to "material lacking a reliable source." The material you removed all had reliable and verifiable sources. WP:Verifiability (which is the true pagename of WP:ONUS), I believe, does not apply. You are trying to say that it attacks Kenneth Kitchen (I guess, under WP:BLP?) or that it is WP:FRINGE. Scholarly disagreements are not "attacks"; and two editors already (one is me) disagree with your blanket removal of 8,000+ characters of material without discussion. You needn't get worked up that I and User:Iry-Hor reverted your edits. But you did. You ordered him to "let’s hear it. Tell me why." He calmly told you. You smarmily told me, "you’re a very experienced editor" and ordered me to justify my actions to you. When I very calmly told you my reasoning and took issue with your tactics, you ran to "attack, attack, attack!"
(3) I refuse to do what you tell me to do. If User:Dougweller wants to contact me, that's fine. He is a good admin and I respect his decisions and demeanor. But I ain't going to justify things to you because you want me to, nor will I kowtow to your tactic. If you think such material should be removed, ask on the talkpage, so the editors of the New Chronology page and Wikipedia can evaluate your arguments. Don't come wailing and moaning to me and tell what I should and shouldn't do, feigning victimhood. (I could say your ordering me about is an attack: ordering me to explain myself to you, demanding I talk to another user, telling me what you'll do if mean ol' me refuses to have a "civil discussion.")
(4) Finally, I know it as an essay, not a guideline, but I think you should give Wikipedia:Content removal a read. You are trying to use WP:Verifiability to remove a mass of material, but that is for unverifiable material. This: Wikipedia:Content_removal#Consensus_on_removal, I think, is the proper process for removing the material you find oh so offending. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m not misrepresenting WP:ONUS. You are implying (falsely) that you are only required to provide a source, when WP:ONUS actually dictates that you are required to provide a RELIABLE source. Sources are not simply reliable or unreliable; they are reliable or unreliable to support a given claim. YOU must show that Rohl and Furlong can reliably assert what you’re using them to assert, or find a reliable source that makes the same assertions. Asking you to do what you are required to do is not a personal attack; it’s the rules of Wikipedia.

However, making disparaging comments about other editors and their “nice tactic” IS a personal attack.

I thought my proposal to use Dougweller as a moderator was more than fair. If you reject my attempt to have a civil discussion and also reject my attempt to reach a moderated compromise then you have given up on Wikipedia’s process. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So we are finally having the required discussion (which should have taken place before the content removal)! Can we seriously come back to the subject, namely Rohl's chronology? Why not asking to Rohl himself, since he is a wikipedia user? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would take us very far since he's the one who added it - clearly a COI addition. We need to look at our policies and guidelines. Looking at Furlong, why are we including him at all? Yes, his dissertation was published in the Gorgias Dissertations series, but I can see no evidence it was been taken seriously in the academic world. I think he fails WP:WEIGHT and we should not use him. His views aren't significant - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I said, I can't find such sources discussing him. As an aside, I don't think getting a PhD makes you a scholar. I'm really sorry I didn't pay enough attention to this article as that should never have been allowed to stay and Rohl should never have added it. I've also removed the bit sourced to the Yahoo group and restored the original text that was in that section. I'm pretty clear in my mind that Furlong does not belong but I'll await a response before removing it. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Me culpa, I see I said go ahead. I've learned a lot since then. I was busy at the time I see. And another editor objected but was ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 12:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Copied most of my comment to the article talk page. As an aside, I recently said much the same thing about reliable sources at I think the RS talk page. Being published reliably doesn't mean we should use a source. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have replied to User:Dougweller on Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), where such discussion actually belongs. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)