Talk:Raymond Hoser

Information removed

There is a vast amount of false and hate material on this page!

articles removed

I have removed a list of three article by some critic. They seemed like negative articles and had no specific justification. They were marked as being "references" but did not reference anything within the current text. Please give reasons and seek consensus here before considering replacement. Thanks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They seemed like negative articles ...! It is more likely that mentioning his allegations against other living people will contravene BLP, it is ridiculous to suggest that my contribution would be libellous.

I restored the refs and expanded the article to include a mention of his work in snake taxonomy, which is mentioned extensively at his websites, and referenced this with some critic the eleven professional and peer reviewed workers in the field who put their names to three papers disputing his nominations. If the user above reverts this again, with this facile reasoning, I insist that he also seeks a genuine and independant review to justify his self righteous indignation and edit warring. cygnis insignis 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel upset. It was not my intention to upset you. However, I didn't remove actual "references" from this article. I removed links to negative articles about the subject that were NOT being used as references, as they were referencing nothing in the article at the time I removed them. For obvious reasons we don't allow link farms to critical essays on a BLP. You replaced them as were, I removed them again. It got a little silly. It would have been better had we either discussed the matter on this talk page (if we disagreed we could have waited for other views) or, you did what you have now done and expand the text to make then into real in-line references which are justified by the current content of the article. When we are dealing with an article on a living person, we remove material than is disputed, and then discuss, always in its absence, and we take out time and ask for third opinions as necessary. But disputed material always stays out until consensus is reached. However, I have no objections to what you have eventually done (and would not have if you'd done that earlier). Cheers. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Venomoids

User:Mokele added this after making violent statements at the AfD. I removed it to gain comment from other users. cygnis insignis 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing referenced material will be considered vandalism, and reported to the administrators. Do not do so again. Mokele (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing referenced material is NOT vandalism, unless done without reason. If there's a dispute about negative material on a BLP then it stays OUT until a consensus is found on the talk page. Mokele and cygnis you need to give your reasons here, that either you might find a consensus, or await the comments of others. Don't use "vandalism" for "edits I don't like" it is not helpful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is simple - he's not only done this, but he openly admits it and the methods which are criticized are DIRECTLY from his descriptions of his procedures. Criticism of this practice is widespread and pervasive, as evidenced by both the forum thread and the petition, as well as being strongly grounded in law (see the laws cited in the petition (linked), as well as the associated articles, particularly the one written by a vet). Look, I can appreciate that including negative information in living people's biographies, but we don't avoid mention of Vick's dogfighting - it's proven. Hoser himself admits to this practice, so there's absolutely no controversy on that account. And I've adequately documented the controversy (though, frankly, I could document enough for a further 3 pages). I can see absolutely no reason to remove it short of a pathetic desire to lie by omission in order to avoid causing offense. Mokele (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then ask the other party to explain their reasons that you might be able to "see" what they are. There may be an objection you have not thought of. Assuming bad faith isn't helpful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversy that is being debated in public although with lots of POV, no secondary references that I could find to put a balanced debate. I think it should probably be included, but care must be taken over what is being stated and POV statements must be clearly attributed. I have cleaned up the references in this section giving titles of references, and the websites they are from to help with transparency in POV in the citations. The section may need more careful wording for a more balanced view--Takver (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref edits - is there a wikipedia guide for the codes? I've just been apeing the styles of other references on the page or other pages, with mixed results. Mokele (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Read WP:CITE for more information. Remember that the more accurate the details you provide in the citation may make it more easily verifiable and transparent to other readers. Citing Links to websites is useful for verification, but having an accurate full citation is even more important. If content from a website vanishes, you have at least a good indication of the nature of the content, and a possibility for tracking it down through online archives or possibly hardcopy or electronic format from a public library. Generally secondary independent sources are more useful and encyclopedic, but primary sources can be used to support facts or attribute statements from people. --Takver (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this needs to stop. There is ABSOLUTELY NO wiggle room here - Hoser has directly and personally described using methods which violated laws. Those laws are linked to in the article at the end of the statement, and are part of an act called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. How can it possibly be any more unambiguous? It's not a case of "some argue", it's a case of "Person has done A, A is explicitly forbidden by law B, and law B was explicitly passed because A was recognized as animal cruelty". You cannot argue that the law does not say his actions are illegal. You cannot argue that the law is not about animal cruelty (just look at the damn name). And you cannot argue that hoser has not violated it (he has openly admitted he has done so). I fail to see any possible merit whatsoever in your weasel-words. Mokele (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that this petition isn't a reliable source. Has this controversy been covered in newspapers at all? That would be a source that had editorial controls for accuracy and would be independent of the parties involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware it's not as good as, say, a newspaper article, but the problem is, that petition actually *is* one of the best sources out there. This issue is primarily a concern of venomous reptile keepers (either hobbyists or zoos), which is a very small group of individuals who only get media coverage when someone dies. One of the sources I added, a webpage by a friend of mine (widely renowned as one of the best venomous snake handlers in the world), deals very well with the ethical issues and such, but the petition is useful as it actually lists which specific laws were broken, as well as linking to opinions by prominent herpetologists, keepers, and vets (as well as names or people & organizations). The best alternative I can get is this, which I'll add in now: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/s36.html which is the relevant criminal law defining it as an offense to perform surgery without any pain relief. Mokele (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Venomoids: An Overview
• A Case Against Venomoid Snakes
• Veterinary Ethics: What About Venomoids?

I've tried rewrite this section to concentrate on what the reliable sources say about this, although there is little information I could find on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

While I like the new section, I feel that some of it would best be moved to a page just on venomoids (where the controversy could be dealt with extensively), while what's here should pertain more to Hoser's involvement. However, as there is no such page (yet), what's there should stay. I'm a bit reluctant to let the word remain so passive/lax when it comes to an individual who refuses to use analgesia during surgery, but after reviewing the articles on other individuals who've engaged in animal cruelty, I'm willing to let it stand as is. Mokele (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper article I just added helps balance the section a bit, it also shows that the authorities do not approve of this procedure. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a rewrite edit to this section, after splitting it to Venomoid, and removed nearly all refs that do not specifically mention Hoser. One cited line remains to illuminate that topic, the rest only explain his relevance to it. I will make another edit to retitle the section in the article, but it will probably need further refining. I removed the line below, it's not directly supported by its ref, though it does refer to the amendment which the tribunal cited in response to Hoser's application. The tribunal's determination was sought by the subject of the article, so it needs reworking and inclusion in the article. cygnis insignis 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• In 2007 the Victoria state government amended the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 to ban the removal of venom glands from snakes unless performed for a therapeutic reason by a registered veterinarian.(ref)Hoser v Department of Sustainability & Environment (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2008 VCAT 2035 (30 September 2008) 9 October 2008, section 21(/ref)

Rattlesnake genus

In this publication on rattlesnakes Hoser, who is the author of books criticising reptile smuggling in Australia, names one of his new rattlesnake subgenus Crutchfieldus to honor a convicted US reptile smuggler for his “many contributions to herpetology”.

Is there any source that makes the connection between Hoser's books on smuggling and this rattlesnake "genus"? If this has been commented on for the first time on wikipedia that is original synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no obvious direct connection between the books and the new rattlesnake genera. However, that was not the point. The statement was made to show that someone who is against something, and even writes books about being against it, names a new genus in honor of somebody else who was subject to all that, what the author of the book deeply spurned, showing the stereotype of the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.206.98 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but unless another source makes this comparison, you can't use Wikipedia to bring this to the world's attention. This isn't the place to do that - all we do is summarise what other people have written in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment! Well, presenting the facts with absolutely no bias, would be to leave out the middle part of the sentence "..., who is the author of books criticising reptile smuggling in Australia,...". These facts are supported by the rattlesnake paper itself, and the link provided from the US government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.222.155 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That part of the sentence is merely a fact Please clarify "showing the stereotype of the issue". What stereotype and which issue? cygnis insignis 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I referred to the quotation above, where this part of the sentence had gone lost. A strong advocator of anti-smuggling (and in this function also an author of anti-smuggling books) names a snake genus in honor of a proven convicted reptile smuggler, whereas he otherwise in his recent papers has a go on other people, claiming them to be reptile smugglers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.210.41 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, unless a source has made this connection it is likely to conflict with Synthesis. You might consider the advantages of starting an account, if you haven't already. cygnis insignis 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mokele is a serial liar by omission and the like. Fact is that all Hoser venomoids comply with the relevant rules and he has the relevant issues under the POCTA Vic, DSE and OH and S Laws. Venomoids like most things are only illegal if you do not have relevant permits and permissions. Hoser spent over $20,000 to get these and is alone in Australia to have done so, giving him a competitive edge against all other reptile demonstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Crutchfield was only guilty of so-called "paperwork offences", the smugglers Hoser attacks, eg.g. David John Williams were also convicted and fined for serious animal cruelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AU$5,000 fine for conempt of court in lede?

The court decision is already in the body of the article. Adding it to the lede as a standalone statement when it is a very minor part f the article violates WP:LEDE which says the lede is to be a summary, and not a listing of each factoid in the article. IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then let's also remove the statements that he is a "tireless investigator" and "one of Australia's most energetic and courageous whistleblowers" which are just the opinions of individuals. WWGB (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The cite says those words - so it is not WP making that judgement. Nonetheless, it likely does not belong in the lede either. Move all of that down to the body when you remove the iteration of the court finding, please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've jiggled around a lot of the content, done some rewrites/cuts and written a new second half for the lead - if we had some polite criticism of to set against the praise (if any exists, of course!) that would make it even better. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Journal

Although I don't put it the same way as Mokele... this journal of Hoser's is a self-published journal and does not appear to be peer checked or have any other contributors. Is there a third party source that identifies it as significant? Or as a journal? Or mentions it at all? I'm considering how best to present the info, but it might be best just removed. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

All the BLP does is state that the journal exists. There is no requirement that it be "significant" AFAICT. It is apparently available at the National Library of Australia per [1]. Collect (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a legitimate source that explains in detail why his "journal" does not, in fact, "exist", by the standards of the scientific professions: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/zt02236p036.pdf (2009 article from Zootaxa, a peer-reviewed taxonomical journal, by Wallach, Wüster, & Broadley entitled "In praise of subgenera: taxonomic status of cobras of the genus Naja Laurenti (Serpentes: Elapidae)"). It mentions Hoser by name, and includees the rather damning statement "from the nomenclatural point of view, this online publication [Hoser's "journal"] does not constitute a published work according to Articles 8.1.3, 8.6, 9.7 and 9.8 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) (hereafter referred to as “the Code). The new names published therein are therefore unavailable under the rules of the Code." 67.170.84.219 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomic disputes

All of the criticism of his taxonomy seems to originate from Wuster.. this is concerning, do we have any other sources to back up these claims. From my research so far it seems they are in some personal dispute - if we can't back up Wuster's claims I suggest it needs to be refocused as being attributed to him. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the Nature article (already cited) that cites Hoser *by name* as a perfect example of why amateurs shouldn't do taxonomy. As far as the Wuster thing, it's likely just a product of the relatively small number of workers in the field - generally speaking, most scientists are too busy to spend much time quibbling with cranks unless they're the one who has to fix the problems caused by said crank. Mokele (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Still it's concerning; some of the source material I have seen doesn't quite match up with Wurster - it looks a bit like a personal feude from the outside. Looking at reworking the taxonomy section I could do with some better sourcing to back up the whole "not accepted by..." statements. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you find papers, I should have full-article access through my university (drop me a line here or my talk page), but I don't keep up with the snake taxonomy literature beyond what I happen across incidentally in the general herp journals. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of other papers that address and criticise Hoser's taxonomic work: Aplin, K.P. & Donnellan, S.C. (1999). An extended description of the Pilbara Death Adder, Acanthophis wellsi Hoser (Serpentes: Elapidae), with notes on the Desert Death Adder, A. pyrrhus Boulenger, and identification of a possible hybrid zone. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 19, 277-298.; Aplin, K.P. (1999) 'Amateur' taxonomy in Australian herpetology - help or hindrance? Monitor 10: 104-109.; Schleip, W.D. (2008) Revision of the Genus Leiopython Hubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with the redescription of taxa recently described by Hoser (2000) and the description of new species. Journal of Herpetology 42: 645-667. Schleip, W.D. & O'Shea, M. (2010) Annotated checklist of the recent and extinct pythons (Serpentes, Pythonidae), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and distribution. ZooKeys 66: 29–79 (available free at http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/). Note also that the only taxa described by Hoser that have been accepted in the later Australian herpetological literature (e.g., field guides) are those confirmed as valid by later studies, such as the genus Broghammerus (found to be valid by Rawlings et al. 2004) and Acanthophis wellsi (by Aplin & Donnellan, 1999). Caissaca (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And another one: ZAHER, H.; F.G. GRAZZIOTIN; J.E. CADLE; R.W. MURPHY; J.C. MOURA-LEITE & S.L. BONATTO. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of the advanced snakes (Serpentes, Caenophidia) with an emphasis on South American Xenodontines: a revised classification and descriptions of new taxa. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 49: 115-153. Caissaca (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowly working my way through :) cheers. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Authorship

Frankly, I cannot fathom how this is not worthy of inclusion. That Hoser is the *only* author in this journal is extremely notable (as it is extremely irregular to say the least, and utterly at odds with every single other scientific journal), and sourcing it directly to his website is neither OR nor SYNTH, since it's nothing more than just tabulating the contents. If looking at a list is OR, WP needs to seriously re-evaluate its policies. Mokele (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should note - there are NO secondary or tertiary sources that meet WP:RS for anything beyond the simple existence of the journal (and in that case, the sources are merely library holdings noting they have it). Seriously, I went through *every single google result*. In fact, the only source of *any* kind outside of Hoser's own site is a Zootaxa paper (therefore also a primary source) which spends an entire paragraph berating his work as "inferior", and all of the secondary/tertiary sources that don't meet RS (blog posts, forum posts, etc.) are even more scathing. So basically, we either have to accept the validity and usefulness of primary sources in this BLP, open the box of wormsnakes (ba-dum-cha!) that is the general opinion on Hoser's work, or completely remove any mention of his supposed journal. Given that it is not in any of the databases and does not have an impact factor, the latter option is not without merit, but I'm still in favor of the foremost. (I feel I should also note that my favorite and most-invoked policy is WP:IAR.) Mokele (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Searching every article is precisely what is meant by "original research" on Wikipedia (WP:OR). We only use what others write, and do not engage in research for facts. If no reliable source has printed the claim, we do not make the claim. Especially in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR - this is excessively strict adherence to the letter, not spirit, of a policy, preventing improvement of an article via incorporating relevant information. If the existence of the journal is relevant, so are the tremendous differences between it and every other journal. Conversely, if we are indeed neglecting these differences, I suggest that the journal itself fails to meet notability guidelines by even the most generous standards. The only thing that makes the journal relevant or noteworthy is the very fact that it's a "vanity journal", and if we don't acknowledge this fact, it's inclusion is misleading at best. Mokele (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mokele. The only notable aspect of the journal is the fact that it is a vaity journal that publishes non-research by the founder, editor and author. If that cannot be mentioned, then the entire journal should not be. Caissaca (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is absolute on this. IAR can not override WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No BLP policy is violated. The only rule that comes anywhere close is OR, and frankly, this is no more OR than stating "the journal has 8 issues", or "the journal's subject matter is X, Y and Z". I'm perfectly willing to bring this before the OR disputes group and get a ruling on this, because frankly, this excessive extension of the rule is assinine. Mokele (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh? All contentious claims must be fully sourced. The claim is not only not fully sourced, it is unsourced. WP requires that RS sources be used. Is this clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided [2] clearly demonstrates that there are no other contributors except Hoser to any of the eight published editions of the journal. That is not OR, it's fact. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You need a source stating that Hoser is the "sole author." The journal is not RS for such a claim. Really. You may know something is a "fact" but Wikipedia requires us to only state what others have written. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." (WP:PRIMARY) IMO, any educated person is able to verify from the source that Hoser is the sole author. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it a "contentious claim" to state a simple fact sourced from the publication being referred to? I would consider the unreferenced statement that "Raymond Terrence Hoser (...) is a herpetologist" to be closer to OR (and also more contentious...) than the simple statement of fact that he is the sole author of the papers published in his journal Caissaca (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WWGB and Caissaca are correct. Yes, this reflects poorly on Hoser, but the claim itself is not in any way contentious, and the information falls well within the scope of the quote WWGB posted. As far as WP:RS goes, you're once again blindly applying rules with no thought of context or content - If I assert that a webpage contains a given sequence of words, what reference can possibly be better than the website itself displaying exactly that sequence of words? It's about as close to a perfect reference as you can get. Mokele (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My view of the content is "meh" - it was added back to make the point it is a vanity publication - which is enough to make it contentious in my mind. I don't really see the point; better to find some secondary sourcing about the journal or remove mention of it completely. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree, but IMHO, it's a rather ugly nest of mis-classified vipers: If we omit it entirely, we're excluding a) what is currently his main/only publication outlet and b) a noteworthy event from a biographical "things that people did" perspective. If we include it without commenting on it's "vanity press" status, it gives a false and misleading impression of both the nature of the journal (ie. that it's legitimate and regarded as such) as well as of Hoser's status in the scientific community (typically, new journals are primarily started by and run by very, very important, respected people - a list of Editors-in-chief is a pretty good guide to who's at the top of a given field). If we include both the journal and something indicating (if not directly stating) its nature, we risk running afoul of issues covered in WP:BLP. Personally, I think we should go with it as-is because it includes a relevant bit of information (the founding of the journal) as well as noting an unusual, thus notable, difference between it and other journals, all without overtly and directly disparaging it, which I think is a pretty good compromise to deal with the conflicting issues above. Mokele (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mokele. The current version seems like a reasonable compromise that avoids WP:OR, does not directly disparage the subject, but paints a realistic picture. Caissaca (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What about this wording: "Hoser is the editor of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology, which, as of July 2011, has published eight issues, the first in January 2009 and the last in February 2010. Hoser authored all of the articles." Two more comments. First, for a journal that hasn't published anything in a year and a half, I would favor removing it from the article completely. It looks to me like Hoser decided it wasn't working well. So, it's pretty much a failed project. Second, I didn't look at all the issues to verify the claim that no one else authored an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally like it, but some mention should be made of the fact that he's the creator as well as editor, since one can become the editor of existing journals following retirement of prior editors (and indeed that's the normal way it works). Plus it seems a bit clunky, probably due to all the commas. As far as it's recent inactivity, I'm mixed - on one hand, I could see it as being abandoned, while on the other, I could easily see him starting anew once he finds another unfortunate taxa to "revise". I think we shouldn't make a big deal out of the journal (1-2 sentences, tops), but IMHO 17 months is a bit premature to declare it dead (without official confirmation from Hoser himself). Mokele (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source to support that he's the "creator"? The recent activity stands in stark contrast to before when there were issues coming out regularly. In any event, I wouldn't say in the article that the journal is dead. That comment was in support of not mentioning the journal at all in the Hoser article. As for the commas, I was trying to make it as short and concise as possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the issue; there aren't any sources, we are basing content purely off our reading of the Journal's web page. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)