User talk:Publius Obsequium: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Two topic bans |
←Blanked the page Tags: Blanking Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Please stop using primary sources and removing content without explanation == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_satisfaction&diff=1229564262&oldid=1229293433 this] series of edits are inappropriate, as Wikipedia relies on secondary sources (like books) rather than primary source studies. There is zero reason for you to be deleting content in favour of something supported by a primary source study. In addition, even if it were a secondary source, you should only be adding content alongside the other viewpoint, not removing it without justification. Some of your work indicates signs of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing, so I politely ask you take this advice seriously moving forward. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, you inappropriately reverted me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Coates&diff=prev&oldid=1229560639 here] and misrepresenting sources. Stop it asap. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I actually have the original source and the way it was interpreted was inaccurate. Would you like me to quote it for you? [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The article Life Satisfaction is filled to the brin with sources using primary source studies. There is zero reason for you deleting content sourced with a primary source study. At least be consistent and remove all other edits that use primary sourced material. [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Peer-reviewed academic research is appropriate for use as sources on Wikipedia and it doesn't matter at all whether it comes in book form or article form. Journal articles are not 'primary sources', and books published by academic presses are not deficient in any way. Y'all need to chill and stop deleting stuff along these lines. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 19:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you for clarifying that. I thought it was strange that I see others argue that journal articles are not suitable, despite clearly seeing a lot content on wiki pages being derived from those sources. [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 20:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Nomoskedasticity}}, that isn't true. See [[Secondary source]]: {{tq|Primary source materials are typically defined as "original research papers written by the scientists who actually conducted the study." An example of primary source material is the Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions sections of a research paper (in IMRAD style) in a scientific journal by the authors who conducted the study}}. This is why people tend to rely on academic reviews, critical reviews, scholarly books, textbooks, etc to get a secondary, independent assessment of the research by a topic expert (see an explanation at [[WP:USEPRIMARY]]: {{tq|Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports}}). Many individual studies have issues with methodology and effect sizes, improper claims of causality where there is none. That is exactly why a primary source study is often inappropriate to directly cite unless supported by a secondary source. Tagging {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} here who may further clarify. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 22:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::A perfect example of what I'm talking about: Publius Obsequium used a collection of small primary source studies from the 90s to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypnotherapy&diff=prev&oldid=1229776725 claim] that hypnotherapy can cure excema, with language of causality: {{tq|"shown to be effective in the treatment of eczema"}}. This is why we do not rely primary source studies, unless they are well covered in secondary sources. It should be compulsory reading for new editors to read [https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False]. |
|||
::::[[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The relevant policy here [[WP:PSTS]]. It doesn't say "use books" and "don't use journal articles". Books can be primary research in the sense you are using the term. And there's no prohibition on using articles. Of course I agree with you that we shouldn't use ''poor'' articles. But articles in peer reviewed journals count as reliable sources (see the section just above PSTS). The position you're taking is too simplistic and not in line with the relevant policy. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 06:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No, {{u|Nomoskedasticity}}. I never said "don't use journal articles, use books". I advised specifically against citing ''primary source studies''. I encourage using academic reviews, which ''are'' published in journals, and these qualify as secondary sources. [[WP:PSTS]] clearly supports my point: {{tq|"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published '''secondary sources''', and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources"}}. Hence, it's acceptable to cite primary sources ''when'' they are discussed/covered in accompanying secondary sources, which [[WP:PSTS]] also clarifies: {{tq|"All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"}}. How is that not clear? Most studies (e.g. with methods, results, discussion) are primary sources, academic reviews of studies/research are secondary sources (and these can indeed be found in journals, textbooks, books etc). Secondary sources are used precisely because most editors/readers are not capable of evaluating what constitutes a "poor article" (as you put it). Hence, we defer to secondary sources, usually ones written by topic experts who can evaluate studies in the broader context of the research. My point stands. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Please explain why this rule is so selectively enforced. Why are you not deleted the reams of co tent that is cited solely by primary sources? Indeed, you reverted one of my edits that removed such a primary source, with no explanation as to why the original primary source was to be left intact [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::“ Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources” |
|||
:::::::this does not support your point. In fact it says explicitly you can use primary sources, just to a “lesser extent” [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 14:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Read the sentence after and stop being selective. You need to stop the edit warring. A WP administrator is already in agreement about issues with your editing, so you should take my advice. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Okay so I can delete all wikipedia content that does not conform to this and you agree to not revert it like you have done in the past? [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 19:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}No, it really depends on the context. Let's take [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_satisfaction&diff=prev&oldid=1229972121 this edit] as an example. Removing information that has been in the article for some time, and which cites a source, merely because the source is a book and there are no page numbers is not constructive. If you have reason to doubt that the source supports the information, you should first do your best to determine whether the information is actually there or not. In the case of the linked edit, it was not very difficult to find the page numbers by using Google Books – that's not always a possible strategy, but this book does have a preview feature which lets you read a substantial part of it. The statement about selecting into marriage is supported on page 25 of the book. If you don't have the time or inclination to check the source, it's more constructive to tag the citation as "page numbers needed" – again, this applies to situations where the information has been in the article for some time and where there is no reason to believe it is incorrect. |
|||
The "Marriage" section was (and still is) a bit of a mess, though – it is obvious that over the years, different editors have added text without looking at the context or what the surrounding sentences say. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_satisfaction&diff=1216377270&oldid=1216052181 This set of edits (not by you) from March of this year] is an example of this, where part of the paragraph became something akin to word salad – and although the source added in one of the edits is rather good, it doesn't support the text that was added with it! The kind of edit where text is added haphazardly into an existing paragraph is unfortunately pretty common, so it is always a good idea to look at the surrounding context when editing an article to improve the sourcing. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 08:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Interestingly, Publius Obsequium made an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flynn_effect&diff=prev&oldid=712079035 edit] back in 2016 in which they, quote: {{tq|"Replaced primary sources with a secondary source"}}. So they already ''know'' how this all works. |
|||
:After I assumed good faith, they went and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_satisfaction&diff=prev&oldid=1229971990 deleted] secondary sources as a "primary source" (I explained that meta-analyses are secondary sources) and then deleted a secondary source because it didn't include a page number (as you noted). |
|||
:Seems like trolling. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 09:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually Zenomonoz, you deleted a book I cited because it lacked page numbers. This is, according to your own argument, against wikipedia standards, and I think betrays a lack of good faith editing. Please refrain from edit warring. [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not the same. You removed longstanding content that was *only* backed by a secondary source instead of tagging ‘page number needed’. Your addition was quite different: you included a single secondary source alongside a large number of primary sources. Did this secondary source actually discuss your primary sources? Given you provided no page number, there was little reason to believe so. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 00:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Also what you cite as "meta analysis" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_satisfaction&diff=prev&oldid=1229971990 is a "multi level analysis". These are two different concepts! please, if you do not have a grasp of research methods, refrain from idiosyncratic interpretations of what these terms mean [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 15:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hasn’t checked that one carefully. Upon second look, yes, it should be removed unless covered in a secondary source. |
|||
:::Regardless, you’re ignoring the rest of the problems. When multiple users are on your talk page expressing concern, it’s usually for good reason. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion== |
|||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:FTN-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Don’t really appreciate your first interaction with me being you wanting to report me to ANI, would have appreciated if you would bring your concerns regarding the hypnotherapy page to me first [[User:Publius Obsequium|Publius Obsequium]] ([[User talk:Publius Obsequium#top|talk]]) 01:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 02:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions involving gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing in the area. Compare examples at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1230219238#Publius_Obsequium_disruption]. |
|||
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics procedure]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024|log of sanctions]]. Please read [[WP:TBAN]] to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period to enforce the ban. |
|||
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments|the appeals process]]. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction/topicban.--> [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions involving the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing in the area. Compare examples at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1230219238#Publius_Obsequium_disruption]. |
|||
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics procedure]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024|log of sanctions]]. Please read [[WP:TBAN]] to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period to enforce the ban. |
|||
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments|the appeals process]]. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction/topicban.--> [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||