User talk:SageRad

Welcome!

Hello, SageRad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Shiftchange (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

gut microbiome and glyphosate

i think i just reverted you for about the fourth time on this. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not cool with me. Your edits to remove this point strike me as a propagandist agenda. Other people's citation included Huff Post. How is Grist different? You've also removed other posts on the same topic of glyphosate's probable effects on the gut microbiome, and the fact that animals do contain the EPSP synthase molecule, when i did cite more "reliable" sources, i do believe. Why do you do this? What is your agenda? It is very clear that glyphosate can act upon the very microbes in our guts, and that it is present in our guts. This is basic science. I can link to peer-reviewed articles from the 1980s that shows this effect. Actual studies on effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome have not been done, but the hypothesis is very likely according to the basic science, and the lacuna in the scientific record the notable thing. The Grist article makes this point, and describes reasons why the hypothesis is serious. Please allow it to be referenced. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you are unhappy but I am just telling you how Wikipedia works. You are pretty new here. You cannot add stuff to articles because you think X is true (that is original research which is not allowed here). Everything must be verifiable. (Those two links point to Wikipedia policies). What does "verifiable" mean" It means that there is some "reliable source" out there that says it - that this is really a mainstream notion in the relevant field. For health related matters, reliable sources are defined in WP:MEDRS which was linked-to in my note to you above. Grist is not a reliable source per MEDRS. The whole point of all that - no original research, verifiability, and reliable sourcing - is to make Wikipedia really useful and reliable. These policies and guidelines were developed by the Wikipedia community over the years, to guide itself. Think about what a garbage dump this place would be, if anybody could add any old thing they wanted. And think about the very ugly arguments that would break out. Right? Instead of a Mad Max, wild west kind of place, Wikipedia has a sort of "body of law" that governs what we do and how we treat each other. The spirit of that "body of law" (we actually call it policies and guidelines not "law) - is really beautiful. It takes some time to learn. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i can accept that and acknowledge your points. So, if i cite peer-reviewed research paper sources that show that glyphosate does act upon the very same microbes that are in the human gut microbiome, that would be a valid addition, right? I also wonder why the HuffPo sources are allowed if my Grist reference was not allowed. Is HuffPo more valid or is it because the article in HuffPo references more valid sources than the one in Grist? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks. i do hope you do read MEDRS. you will see that popular media sources like grist and huffpo are not OK for health claims - you need reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. we have high standards for sourcing for health claims because they are so important. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Then i will reference peer-reviewed articles to note the likely connection of glyphosate to disruption of the human gut microbiome. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not just "peer reviewed" articles. please do read the definitions section of MEDRS. PRIMARY sources are original research papers; SECONDARY sources are review articles. There is a difference, and an important one! let me help you. so, to find anything in the biomedical literature, the best place to look is pubmed.gov, which is a huge index of the literature. So if you go there and search, (see here) you find there are 2 papers on "glyphosate gut bacteria". But what we want are reviews (secondary sources). there is a "filter" function on the left side there, and if you select "review" from article types, you get one result. PMID 24678255. That paper is, in my view, not reliable. The journal is very very low quality, and it is by Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist at MIT who has gone off the rails on glyphosate. Please see the two discussions of her work linked at the very bottom of the pubmed abstract at PMID 24678255, in the comments section. (the "science based medicine" link there is especially useful) The upshot of all this, is that there are no MEDRS sources to make the kind of claim that you want to make. In other words, the claim is not supported by science, at this time. It may be later, but is not, at this time. So we cannot have content in Wikipedia about this now. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

by the way, this is a conversation we should be having at the Talk page of the glyphosate article. Would it be OK with you, if I copy this conversation there? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ok, so the content you added at Monsanto was not about health, but rather about biology so MEDRS does not apply there. But in general, we look for secondary sources across the board... it is the secondary literature (literature reviews) that helps us in many many ways to do our work here. We can talk about that, if you want. And really, content about glyphosate belongs at the glyphosate article. that herbicide is off patent and has been for 15 years now, and is sold by many companies. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, as well, and this makes sense to me. I could also fruitfully spend my time reviewing claims to safety that may be made by reference to review articles, such as those that review feeding studies of glyphosate, to make sure that it is noted that they do not test for health or effects on the gut microbiome in the animals studied. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

i want to thank you for being patient as we work through this. at the end of the day, everybody wants our articles to be as close to the truth as we limited humans, working within our limited institutions can make them. with science-based content things tend to be more sane because the literature is so deep and scientific publishing is an institution itself. things get really crazy in articles about things like... say, video games, where the sources are blogs and crap like that. thanks again for hanging in there. please know that the articles about monsanto, glyphosate, GMOs, and all that, have been heavily worked over. there is always room to improve them but it is unlikely you are going to find anything that hasn't been worked over in one way or another. the gut microbiome thing is an interesting angle as focus on that is pretty recent, and i appreciate you bringing it up. i am looking forward to seeing how the science unfolds on that. thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

JYTDOG, i am very displeased with the fact that you are undoing every one of my edits, and i don't think it's justified. Sometimes, it is on a sentence that does not reference any citation, and i know the basic science and then edit it, to reflect the basic accepted knowledge, such as the fact that glyphosate does uptake through roots as well as foliage. Why did you reverse these edits? Tell me simply, with no fancy language, please. And why did you delete my section on correlation to changes in rumen of dairy cows with citation to a peer-reviewed article? Why? I need simple direct explanation. Since when is a peer-reviewed article not an acceptable source? Explain simply please. This was NOT a human medical question. This was on dairy cows. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

please don't take it personally. please. as i wrote above, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are really fundamental policies here, and those two, and our third (and final) key content policy, WP:NPOV, all call for editors to use secondary sources, not primary sources. The 2 content guidelines, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, also call us to use secondary sources. And on contoversial articles, everybody should use the best sources, not just what is at hand.

about you being expert.... you ~could~ be anybody, including WP:Randy in Boise (a mythological idiot child who acts like they know everything) or John Franz. You are anonymous. As am I. Part of what is beautiful about WP, is the radical equality that exists here among editors, andthe same policies and guidelines that apply to all of us. btw, You may want to have a read of WP:EXPERT, which is some guidance for experts who come edit Wikipedia in the field of their expertise. again, please don't take anything personally. the glyphosate article is controversial, and on articles like this everybody needs to go slow and surely. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not finding that the reality of the guidelines jives with what you're saying and doing. The page on "what constitutes a reliable source" includes journal articles, and does not specify that they have to be

"secondary sources". I cited a paper on dairy cows and that got removed. That was a report on research that was in a peer-reviewed journal. Is that not an acceptable source?

(exhale) are you really asking me? i am asking because it is not clear to me that you are reading what i am writing and i have a shitload of work to do today in the real world. i am happy to explain but not if you are asking rhetorically.... Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am asking you, because you are the one removing my edits, and i think that i am doing it alright. I have been reading the links you provided, and i think you're acting strangely based on what i am reading. What i see about primary versus secondary sources are not -- as you say -- that primary sources are not allowed. It's that secondary sources are preferable, and it's not ok for the Wikipedia author to interpret a primary source to their own ends. But it *is* ok to use primary sources, and to describe what they find. You've told me to opposite of that. From the link that you provided: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." And then, there is the issue of basic facts in sentences that are not referenced at all but describe basic background knowledge, such as about glyphosate. If a sentence that is not even referenced to a source is incomplete or incorrect, aren't i allowed to edit it, as someone who has been researching the basic science around glyphosate for a while? I think that is the beauty and power of Wikipedia, and you've prevented me from doing so. That is why i have these concerns. I am sorry to use your time, and i am also busy, but you're the one who reverted my edits, into which i put some time to begin with, you know. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

yes i am the one removing your edits (although Kingofaces is too now) and it is also true that you are completely new to wikipedia, are working on a controversial article, and are editing aggressively. right? so really, please slow down. as i wrote on the talk page, there were two kinds of problems with your edits. some of it was WP:OR, and some of it was badly source. ok, please see this thing on my user page. Also, please see WP:Controversial articles. The experience of editing this article, is not like editing something obscure, like the article on Chorismate mutase which is the next one in the chain after EPSP. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not completely new to Wikipedia, as i have been using it as a resource for years, heavily, and i have edited anonymously now and then to correct grammar or details about which i know solidly, and have never had an issue like this before. Sure, i guess glyphosate is "controversial" because there is a very heavy vested interest in the industry to maintain a certain illusion about it, to not provide any clues that it may be less safe than they claim, and that may introduce a tension in the results of the page. I suppose in that sense, but the things i've been correcting on the page have been factual points in the basic science about the chemical. I know from using Wikipedia for years that the sources i'm using are reasonable and generally accepted on Wikipedia. That is why i am bothered by your aggressive reversion of my edits. I would not say i am "aggressively editing". I would say that i made contributions and it was strikingly bad feeling how they were reverted and the reasons given for those reversions did not make sense. Primary sources are *not* prohibited by Wikipedia policy. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yes you are clearly are not completely new, that is clear. I cannot speak to other edits you have made in WP nor whether they "stuck" - your edits on glyphosate have been unsourced or badly sourced. And the stuff about glyphosate being taken up through roots (in addition to leaves) -- there is almost no root uptake, based on sources we already use in the article. i don't know why you added that.

about "controversial" - i've worked a lot on articles related to GMOs in the past few years. Most strongly POV edits (unsourced or unreliably sourced with clear POV content) come from editors who are clearly anti-GMO and are adding negative content; i have seen very few (like maybe 10) edits by editors who make bad edits with a favorable POV. It is hard work to keep the articles NPOV and well-sourced; i get flamed all the time. Note - I am not saying that your edits were POV, only that they were unsourced or badly sourced. And yes it is true that primary sources are not prohibited (few things are here), but the policies and guidelines are consistent that secondary sources should be used, and primary sources used only with great care. If the stuff you want to add is really solid, it will be discussed in reviews - there is rarely a good reason to use a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my edits are meant to be factual. The inclusion or exclusion of facts can be value-laden of course. The frame of an explanation can be value-laden. The claim that animals do not contain the shikimic acid pathway and therefore glyphosate has no effect on animals, though, is not a real fact. It's not true. It's a weasely lie which is in favor of the industry that wishes it to remain the de facto assumption about glyphosate. EPSPS being present in microbes in the human gut means that the human organism has the shikimic acid pathway, in an organismic sense. To be human is to have a gut microbiome. To call it otherwise is, to me, a distortion of the truth that does not serve human knowledge and transparency. As to the "primary vs secondary" distinction, i'm still working on understanding precisely what this means. I get a sense of what it means, and from what i gather, it would tend to make Wikipedia reflect a sense of "scientific consensus" but this can be manufactured by attentive effort by an entity that has an agenda, as has been the case sometimes in the field of climate change study. There may be no review-level paper that reports something important that is reported in a primary research paper. Or, the review-level paper that does mention it may be disallowed by things like your assertion that Seneff papers are not worthy of being cited as sources. I do not like Seneff papers, and i haven't used them. However, who gets to make that determination? Who gets to decide whether a fact is to be reported fro,m a primary source or omitted, or whether a particular source like a Seneff paper is to be excluded from the realm of possibility? [I am going to copy this text to the "Basic Science about Glyphosate" section in the talk page for the entry itself, as i think this ought to be more public of a discussion. If you would reply there, it would make this more public and open, i think.] SageRad (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

wow man you are on a high horse. i am actually glad that you are bringing up the gut microbiome stuff and i agree that there is something potentially interesting there. we (humanity) are just starting to learn about the importance of the gut microbiome and while we have learned some stuff, there is a lot that we don't know yet and there is a lot of wild speculation about it in the popular media and by companies that are already looking to make money off it by selling probiotics and the like. with regard to this particular issue within that field - the extent to which herbicide or pesticide residues on food may be effecting it - that too is very much emerging, and there is also lots of wild speculation about that. we go slow in WP. We are not "cutting edge" here. Please go slow. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was including basic known facts about glyphosate in the story about glyphosate. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at glyphosate

It appears you're pretty new here, so I've leaving this template below to guide you on how we handle content disputes here at Wikipedia and what to generally avoid. Just focus on talking things through on the article talk page or in the section above and you'll hopefully get up to speed without any problems.

Your recent editing history at Glyphosate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that it's gone back and forth once now, and that is where i'll leave it, as i have put comments onto the "talk" page at the glyphosate entry. Is that acceptable? I have questions about how these things work, and i have some issues with the reversions that have been done. I'm discussing this with the person who reverted the edits. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sage. You've chosen a difficult place to start editing. Even those with a strong grasp of wikipedia policies can have trouble on articles like Glyphosate, and Jytdog's recent report to the edit warring board suggests the degree to which some people take these articles seriously. I see you've now replied on that board. I advise caution here as taking disputes personally can lead to insults/leveling accusations at specific editors - a quick way to get blocked. It might be in your best interest to edit on other articles for a few days to see how things work in other less-heated parts of the encyclopedia, and to get a deeper understanding of how WP works (and sometimes doesn't).Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but this happens to be an area that i have been learning about intensively, lately, and therefore have some things to offer the general population in terms of knowledge about glyphosate -- and i do NOT mean "original research" but the offering of relevant but little-known facts about the chemical. I take your point, but i also see that the reason why this article is flawed at the moment is precisely because it's a "controversial" article which comes from the fact that a huge vested interest exists in management of knowledge about this topic, and this is what Wikipedia in spirit is supposed to help humans become liberated from. I have indeed now and then contributed to other articles of which i had solid knowledge, and corrected a few minor mistakes here and there on obscure topics relating to microbes or other basic science that i work with. But when it comes to this one, it seems there are serious challenges that seems rather extreme to me. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

what "vested interest" do you see at play here, SageRad? Dialectric how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a topic around which there are serious vested interests. That is clear. That is why it's controversial, isn't it? There are potential conflicts of interest in this field of study as there is money on the line and there are other important things on the line, like ecology and human health. All of these things drive people passionately toward different goals, sometimes. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

that is not an answer, really. glyphosate is generic - if the "vested interest" is Monsanto they would appear to have very little interest in glyphosate per se (they may do, to the extent that glyphosate-resistant crops are still an important part of their business even as that trait has also gone off patent). As i wrote above, most of the conflict and personal attacks in these articles comes from anti-GMO activists. (by the way i appreciate you removing your reference to "fascist" and removing your other personal attack at the glyphosate talk page without being asked to; i do understand that learning how wikipedia works can be frustrating, especially if you come here with burning issues) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust my gut when it tells me something is wrong. Glyphosate knowledge is an area of great vested interest. I know this from experience. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

by the way, you should read the humorous essay,. Wikipedia:The Truth. a lot of new editors come here talking about "their gut" and "the truth". it is not a way of talking here, that is helpful to anyone. mostly it is not helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this whole episode has been a huge sham and i don't need you to lecture to me from a high and mighty place that there is no such thing as truth, or that it is something worthy of pursuit and gradual approximation toward. I disagree with the outcome of this tribunal, and did not get any sort of a fair hearing. This is not what i expected from Wikipedia. There was not an intentional "edit war" on my part and i do not think there was a 3-time reversal on any particular point that could be fairly called such. Just so you know. I see thinkgs very differently from you and just because you know the ways & means around here doesn't make you right in a factual or ethical sense of the word. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "war" -- I edited and i learned something about procedures, and i discussed in the talk sections after that became apparent to be the preferred method, and i stated that would hold off from editing the disputed sections when the allegation of an "edit war" came up. I do not like the atmosphere of this place. It's hostile. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been talking nicely with you and taking an inordinate amount of my time and effort to explain things to you. you have no grounds to claim hostiluty. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the atmosphere of this place. I feel it's like walking on eggshells and that people hold power over others in ways that are not right, and use bureaucratic means and fancy language to shut down real pursuit of accuracy. I didn't ask you to donate your time to block my edits and then launch an investigation into a supposed "edit war". SageRad (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, SageRad, hell is other people. And in Wikipedia, it is other people, all the time. As i wrote to you way, way above, there is a lot to learn about this place. if you take the time to learn how it works, it can really be beautiful. you really try to communicate with other people, and base discussions on policy, guidelines, and sources. it can be exhilarating. i will tell you that things get the most difficult when people arrive here with a really strong POV and their goal is to content reflecting that POV into the article, first and foremost. not starting with the mission of Wikipedia, not starting with sources, but starting with their own ideas about what they want. that is pretty much you in this case. i have been trying to ask you to go slow and learn how this place works, and start with sources. I hope you will start doing that. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i can chuckle with you on that thought. Still, i really was only attempting to edit the article to reflect some basic facts about glyphosate, how it works, and what it affects. If it were something less "controversial" then i think it would have all been fine. If i were correcting some aspect of an article about Geobacter spp. and electrogenic metabolism, because it's an area of my expertise, i doubt there would have been opposition to using a primary research paper to note a fact. I am committed to accuracy, and i know i make mistakes as do all people, and love the concept of mutual co-editing and checks and balances. I understand that glyphosate is a primary interest of an industry that does pay a lot of attention to what people say about the science around it. I've noted this already in my discussions with people in various forums. It can be rough going. Anyway, here's to three days of peace and quiet, Jytdog. Cheers. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

you keep skipping right over my telling you that the most hellacious editing in these topics has come from anti-GMO activists. they come here with that as their primary interest. that is true. it is bizarre to me that you are acknowledging this. anyway - another thing about how Wikipedia works. The point of page protection, is that editors are forced to discuss content on the Talk page. That is why i listed the article at 3RR - to get it locked down and drive discussion on the Talk page. If there are further changes you want to make, would you please use this time to suggest them - and their sourcing - on the talk page, so that we (you, me, dialectric, and anybody else who cares) can talk through them, before they go into the article? That is not normal, but that is what happens in situations like this. Would you please consider that? Again, that is what this time of protection is for -- it is why Wikipedia has it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge you saying that about anti-GMO activists. I have seen blatant disregard for facts from people on both "sides". I would prefer to avoid sides altogether and look at the science to discern what is real from what is fiction. I've seen anti-GMO fanatics calling people names and citing studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, using studies that test full formulation Roundup to try to assert that glyphosate alone has a certain effect on cells. I have also seen pro-GMO activists call people names, and cite studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, referring to a chimerical wall of animal feeding studies to assert the safety of glyphosate, when on further examination, most of the studies on Roundup Ready feed do *not* include glyphosate in the feed, and even among those that do, none of them do any assessment of gut health other than a visual glance at the intestines after dissection (along with basic clinical assays). So, i guess i've seen it from both "sides". On the other hand, i have had amazing conversations with people on both "sides" who were good participants in dialogue. I have learned a great deal from certain people who were clearly pro-GMO in bias, but who took the time to look at evidence carefully, and to speak carefully and respectfully. I also recognize in myself an occasional tendency to get my hackles up, and to prejudge some people as being more oppositional than they are, from dealing with seriously low attacks by other people -- a problem of deaggregation of individual, by another name, the formation of prejudice.

I also acknowledge with respect your invitation to use this time to discuss possible changes to the page, and i think that i will, starting tomorrow morning. I'm a little too burnt out today to continue right now, though. Thanks, Jytdog. Maybe we can get along and make this a more accurate and complete page. SageRad (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

lord knows we need more science-based editors, solidly grounded in policy and guidelines, working on these articles. i look forward to talking with you tomorrow. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, now that the page protection is in place, it won't be lifted until the 3 days are up, and arguing over the protection will not be productive. I appreciate that you may have specialized knowledge of glyphosate, but I imagine you could find other articles to add to if you do some searching. If you are interested in this I can point you to some wikipedia resources for newer editors. Part of the problem here is - being highly focused on one article or narrow set of articles sometimes raises a red flag for long time editors. It can be seen as pushing a specific point of view, and whether or not the view is supported by good sources, a better approach if you have the time is to learn about wikipedia by working on a range of things without getting to invested in any one debate.

Jytdog, in answer to the above, 'how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"?', what I said was that editing around the encyclopedia, rather than just on Glytophosphate, would give Sagerad an understanding of how WP works and sometimes doesn't. I was not pointing to Glytophosphate as an example. I think you will agree that there are times wikipedia doesn't work or doesn't work smoothly - hoaxes, COI and copyvio articles that stay up for years, discussions that devolve into personal attacks, etc. I think a new editor can learn both from seeing the implementation of policies and the limitations of policy.Dialectric (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric, i can appreciate all that you've said there. I wanted to simply voice my disagreement with the decision, although i accept it, of course, and i was already not editing anymore until further discussion anyway. This is an interesting mechanism. I can see that some articles will be highly contested as there will be interested parties with different perspectives and different goals in editing an article. SageRad (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Glyphosate technical Question

Do you mean notified of page changes on your watchlist or by email? Each article should have a watch/unwatch tab at the top, and if this says 'unwatch' you are already watching the page. There are also a number of relevant settings in the preferences menu on the top right of the wikipedia page for logged in users. Preferences -> watchlist tab and Preferences -> Notifications should cover what you are looking for.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric, thank you. I did check and had the Talk and the main article marked for "watch" and i was referring to receiving the notifications on the Wikipedia page itself on the top bar near my username. Somehow it hasn't been showing up like it did before. Your message on my talk page did show up just now on the top bar, however, and i also did receive and email.

Also, am i doing this right in terms of replying to people? Should i be indenting by one more than what i'm replying to, and then signing the last paragraph? Like this? Thanks for your help. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see - you only get notifications like that three ways. 1 is if someone writes on your talk page (this page). 2 is if somebody "thanks" you for an edit. The third is if someone "pings" you like this SageRad anywhere in Wikipedia - that will also give you a notification. (Quick note on that - the "ping" only works if there is a fresh signature with it (the four tildas). if you misformatted the ping and notice that only after you save your edit, they will not be pinged if you fix it and resave; if you fix it, you also have to sign again. So the times you received notifications were times that you were pinged -not when someone edited the article or the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

if you just type someone's name like this - SageRad - they are not notified, btw. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much, Jytdog. I understand it now. What a place this is, Jytdog.... trying out the pinging thing on you. So am i using the indentations correctly? I guess so, if it's just for formatting purposes and not to ping. And i guess to keep aware of changes on watched pages then i need to go to my watchlist page. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

yep i was pinged - and you will be notified by this comment, b/c it is here on your Talk page. and yes you are understanding indenting, signing, pinging, and watchlists. the logistics that take a bit of learning to master and can be so baffling. hooray! Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto etc

SageRad - Different areas of the encyclopedia have different cultures, and as a controversial subject, Monsanto discussions can be particularly contentious. You might find looking through the archive of discussions on Jimbo Wales (cofounder of wikipedia)'s talk page useful. It is the place where big picture issues like those you mention in your Monsanto comment are most often discussed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth might be of interest, as well.Dialectric (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dialectric. I appreciate the pointers. I did find a section called "How our "Due Weight" and "Proportioning" policies have degraded some articles" on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page that seems to discuss these issues. Is this what you had in mind for me to look at? I fully support verifiability, but i worry about the framing and weight given to various aspects of topics in terms of struggles by groups with different agendas. I'm also concerned about the nature of consensus as used by some people who urge compromise on what the facts are, or what facts are included or excluded, and sometimes the way that very strict interpretation of guidelines can limit the usefulness or completeness of articles. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you edited my talk page to add indenting on my above comment to Dialectric -- what's that about? Is that a signal like "I have seen what you wrote?" SageRad (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

no, it means that your page is now on my watchlist, that I read what you wrote, saw it was misformatted, and fixed it. i thought about writing, but didn't. but in light of your comment, i will write now what i was going to then, since your comment is right in line with it... you are kind of overthinking things and you are writing about your overthinking on article talk pages. There is a reason why assume good faith is a pillar here, and why so, so many of the policies and guidelines are focused on the surface of things - one content, sources, policies, and guidelines. Anonymity allows people to speak freely here and is a very deeply held value in the community, but it also can breed paranoia. AGF is meant to be a bulwark against that. (please think about that) I wrote to you way, way early in our interaction, that this this place is very well thought out, on a very deep level, in such a way that this place can be beautiful when people fall in line with its vision (you saw some of the kind of interaction that is possible here on the Glyphosate talk page). Policy X can cause Y kind of reaction, so policy Z arose to correct that or guideline W arose to give nuance. The structure of PAG is also beautiful. But there are also still some pitfalls that people can fall into... and you are falling right into one. For what it's worth, i advise you to keep it simple. "Verifiability not truth" is advice along the same lines. The thing to aim for, is well sourced, NPOV, encyclopedic content. Try to write it, and when others differ, talk about it with them, simply and directly, based on sources, policies, and guidelines. please leave Truth and speculation about other editors' motivations out of it. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume probable good faith in a new person, and then i judge a person's character by their actions. There must logically be a point at which "assume good faith" no longer applies, as people do get banned from Wikipedia for vandalism and impetuous edit warring, don't they? After first contact, then people are being judged by their actions to a degree. That's a fact, isn't it? Do you disagree with this? Do you think that any judgment of a person by their actions is forbidden in Wikipedia-land? Trying to clarify your meaning. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i found this on the Assume Good Faith page: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." One must use one's judgment and not be paranoid, is what i take from that essay. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

people get blocked based on their behavior, not on why they do things. we cannot know why people do things. (i'll add here, that it is really, really interesting to read the drama boards. this place is a laboratory of human behavior. it is amazing how often people get all mad at other editors and bring something to ANI, and end up with the case turning against them, and action being taken against them, because they have no idea how wrong they are -- in other words, editors often don't even understand themselves, much less other people.)

please focus on content and sources and whether they comply with policies and guidelines; focusing on what might or might not be motivating other editors is missing the mark - that is the pitfall you are falling into. going down that path leads to no where good. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, chill with the telling me what to do. SageRad (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was speaking to sociological dynamics that i know exist in the world as relate to power and knowledge, and spoke in general terms. One can indeed, however, use judgment to discern probable motivations in people. It may not hold up as a criteria, but the related behavior can. If someone is overly contentious on a certain set of topics, then that in itself can be a problem behavior, can't it? Of course what constitutes "overly contentious" would also be a matter of judgment. SageRad (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

of course you can do whatever you like. i've been around a long time and worked on controversial articles for a long time. i'm telling you that you are driving over a cliff with regard to what you are doing here in Wikipedia which is not just any old place. you are free to keep driving in that direction, of course. i'll stop trying to help you. good luck! (i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, i am really finding it very difficult to work with you. Really difficult. You come up with allegations against me in nearly every comment of yours. And they acting like you're just trying to be nice an helpful and neighborly. And not even addressing the actual questions or points that i raise, generally. And then citing me for alleged violations of policies and guidelines. It's caused me to feel a very hostile environment here in pages you are involved with. You also seem to include condescension and veiled threats so often, sort of like "Watch out, boy! There's a line here you better not cross..." I tried asking simple questions, like about the relativity of what is deemed a reliable source, and i end up getting an accusation against me... I would not be surprised if you now try to block me or ban me from Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no ill intent toward you - I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to help you understand how Wikipedia works - working here is nothing like writing a blog or commenting on some website. nothing like that. i told you above that there is a kind of "body of law" that provides the foundation what we do here and how we interact here, and that one of the hardest things for new editors to grasp, is that it exists at all, much less how it works. i have celebrated at times when you did get it. But overall you are not getting it; i do hope you eventually start to. going forward i'll be limiting myself to interactions with you about content and sourcing based on policies and guidelines. Done here too. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, if you find interactions with a specific editor contentious, you can request that they not post to your talk page. These requests are almost always honored. There is an exception of notification of postings to admin noticeboards concerning you. If you find you cannot assume good faith in a given discussion, one approach that works for some editors is the 'assume nothing' viewpoint. This is summed up effectively in a quote from wikipedia editor JeffBillman below.Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume that another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume that another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dialectric -- that is pretty much what i've been doing and when successful, it works out best, but it is true that a person with an identity (even a virtual person with a screen name) does automatically build up a profile in the human mind. The human mind is built like that for social interaction. It's hard to see and feel a pattern and then to ignore it completely. Thank you. I always welcome your unsolicited advice. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

misrepresentation

Your charaterization of the sources i use here is not accurate. per WP:TPG:

• discuss content, not contributors
• Do not misrepresent other people Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's quite a stretch. I was asking a question about relativity of what gets called a reliable source versus not a reliable source, and you didn't answer the question and instead cite me with this? Ridiculous behavior. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

the claim that "On the other hand, you seem willing to allow statements supported by citation of research reports from the industry and their allies about their own products, when they report the opposite sorts of things, claims to the absolute safety of glyphosate based on research that i know is not comprehensive" is a misrepresentation. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

SPA /COI

Hi SageRad. I am sorry to have you ask this, but now that you made this edit and added the same content to a second article, I have to ask you the following. (Please do not take this as a personal attack; about half my work here is dealing with COI issues in WP and I ask folks questions like this all the time.) Pretty much all your edits to date have been focused on gut microbiota and glyphosate. Today per the link above, you added content about a lawsuit focused on that issue, sourced to the website of class action suit. I'm providing you with our COI notice, and will have some comments/questions for you below.

I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SageRad. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Question

Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, disclosure of conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. COI issues get a bit ... interesting in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here. Please do read WP:COI, and please note that being involved in litigation is a conflict of interest.

While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with litigation you wrote about? You can answer how ever you wish, but if there is a relationship, please disclose it. Thanks!

I will note that because you and I have tangled, I am starting this conversation but I will not continue it. Instead, I am opening this to the community by posting at COIN. Please see the notice of that below. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's alright. Let me just say simply: I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. I noted the case a month ago when i did a news search for "glyphosate" as i have been doing lately, and then when in noticed a section in the glyphosate article relating to legal cases, i thought it would be appropriate there. I do think the lawsuit is clever and i think it's a great idea, but i have no part in it nor do i know anyone involved directly with it. All i know is it's been the subject of a lot of talk and it's pending. I did try to cite the news story that described it instead of the legal filing itself, but i found that the website was blacklisted on WP and i have made a special whitelist request for that specific page so that perhaps we could cite a news article instead of a filing document, but i like the filing document nonetheless, as a reference. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thread is here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Glyphosate.2FMonsanto Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed this. You have said you not connected to the litigation. Please do pay mind to avoid WP:ADVOCACY per the comments of others there. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

accident, i hope

in this dif you deleted my comment. i have restored it. i hope that was an accident. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, Jytdog -- a total accident. I didn't know that happened, and i'm really sorry. Thanks for asking instead of assuming i did that intentionally. I wonder how that happened. I would not ever do that intentionally. I respect integrity of dialogue fully. SageRad (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated!

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Your edits on Polychlorinated biphenyls are noticed and greatly appreciated.   Bfpage |leave a message  10:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussing content

it is a simple thing to write:

the following content "X" was removed in this diff (with link) with edit note "CCCC" by (username X with link). (I don't understand the reason you gave) AND/OR (I don't agree that this should be removed because (reason grounded in policy and guideline)). Username X would you please respond to that? Thanks.

That is what we do here, per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Polychlorinated biphenyl here and at WT:MEDRS here.

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. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to second this warning. The comments on the MEDRS talk page and on the Polychlorinated Biphenyls talk page are really over the top. Not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda, is ill-motivated, or intellectually dishonest. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 12:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You think i "attacked" others? Really now? SageRad (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I had a very real question about a very real thing that happened, and i was seeking guidance and input from others on interpreting MEDRS since you and others have used it in ways that would exclude very solid data in the article, and i found that challenge to be in my opinion excessive and not to serve the article's best interest. This is still remaining highly contentious, and i would suggest it's not due to my actions. SageRad (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If i were of a litigious mindset, i'd be plastering your walls with warnings and citations and crap like this, more than you've done to me. I hope someone takes the time to look at actual actions, and doesn't fall prey to the sophistry of your accusations, and makes some kind of independent assay on what is going on here. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a real dynamic going on that i described over at MEDRS discussion, and my bringing it there was a good faith effort to defend against what i see as excessive deletions of my edits with the citation that MEDRS applies, when in my estimation that is not the original intended purpose or the spirit of MEDRS, and therefore i started a conversation over there and described -- in the abstract -- not naming anyone -- a situation to get people's feedback and to explain why i wanted this feedback, what prompted me to ask the question. And then for you both to comment like this at my personal talk page, seems to be harassing. SageRad (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What i wrote in the MEDRS discussion:

Suppose that there is a single editor among 10 who appears to want to minimize any statements that may sound bad for chemical companies. Say that this editor cited WP:MEDRS on this, claiming that it's a biomedical claim that falls under the scope of MEDRS and therefore i need to find a MEDRS-qualified source or else the text that i included will be removed. Is that how we want Wikipedia to work? Please consider carefully, is this a MEDRS claim that would affect people's health decisions badly in the future, or is it historical data? Is this a synthesis or is it ok that i am simply reporting readings of PCB levels that were in the paper?

So, based on actual experiences, i made up a hypothetical situation and posed it as a question, as a thought experiment, for people to use in seeing why i am asking this meta-level question about when MEDRS does and does not apply strictly. I am working hard to figure out how the balance of powers and tensions among editors works out here, and those who are quick with a policy citation, or who "know the ropes" can be hard to deal with when they use that knowledge to be obstructionist -- and yes, i have been interpreting some actions as obstructionist, and i've been speaking to that, and i don't think you can really shut down a person speaking to their interpretation of reality, if they do so in a grounded way and with reference to behavior. I mean, i've been cited so many times now, each time being a form of you speaking about my behavior, i suppose, though i find them in the main to be frivolous. We have very different perspectives, apparently, and it's also impossible to know who a person is and what their motivations are, but from a history of actions, one can build up some interpretations. You've attempted to charge me with "advocacy" and with "conflict of interest" so it's sort of pot calling kettle black here, and i really think my observations hold a lot more water and have more real evidence than the ones you've charged me with, and you've done so formally while i am just trying to find a way to work here and asking for 3rd party opinions on interpreting MEDRS. I've seen your interpretations of WP guidelines being not such good interpretations in the past and i'm subjecting them to more scrutiny now. History of actions leads to characterization of a person's nature. That's not a crime you know. It's how society works, and it's how people figure out organically how to work together, and in some cases, who cannot be worked with because of obstructionism. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

i will say this one more time. Since almost your first day here, you have spent more time discussing your speculations about the motivations of other editors than you have discussing content and sources. This is all documentable through diffs. I have told you many, many times that this is not what we do here. You saw at the glyphosate article that it is entirely possible to have a conversation about content, based on sources and policies and guidelines, and to get content changed or added, through simple discussion.

All that your discussion of motivation does, is add static. I gently warned you about this several times above, and on talk pages. I have now formally warned you. You are not taking seriously the behavioral policies and guidelines set up by the community. This is not any old website - there are behavioral norms here in Wikipedia. Please do not continue to ignore them. Please read WP:TPG and WP:NPA and follow them.

this is the last time I will say this. Making personal attacks as you are doing is not allowed here. If you continue, I will take action against you. You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So much of what you said is interpretation, and yes, it's all in the diffs, thank goodness. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

pcbs

I think I understand where you are coming from and in spite of our heated differences I sympathize.

Wikipedia is the most widely accessed site on the internet. For all the discussion about "building an encyopedia", an obvious part of the draw is to influence the tone and content of articles that are seen by hundreds or thousands of people each day. Thus articles about controversial subjects or those which some people feel have underappreciated ethical aspects become very contentious.

This is why things are so legalistic here. The range of opinions is so wide that we long ago gave up on the idea that we can agree what the Truth is. Wikipedia instead aims for the more modest goal of reaching consensus on what is verifiable using a complex set of rules about what is a reliable source. New editors, especially those who join because of an interest in (and often, a strong viewpoint about) a controversi topic often couch their arguments in terms of Truth. That isn't very effective here and they feel beat up and angry. But those sourcing rules are like the rules in football: they are all that separates this place from anarchy.

When I urge you to read the various policies and guidelines, I'm not just being condescending (though I susuppose that's part of it). It will help you be more effective and more politically astute. You'll get more of what you want and feel less frustrated.

On my phone so hard to type. More later. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 14:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly, i appreciate your note and you taking your time to type it on your phone.

• I really do understand what you're saying about legalism being an effect of needing to stop quack pseudo-science and other things from taking over.

---Not just quack pseudoscience but legitimate and irreconcilable differences in opinion, at least from my POV

• As to "The Truth" -- this theme has come up many times, mostly from Jytdog, as a trope. I think there is a reality that we can know, and yet that we as humans mostly do not know. Science is a great tool in helping us understand reality, but we must also be very careful to understand probability levels, and to use discernment and guard against bias. I think you and i agree on this.

---There are all kinds of issues here, partly value related. I guess I see the truth as relative to some extent. Did Monsanto "know" that PCBs were toxic in 1939? Almost certainly. But put in context, the role of chronic toxicity was not really appreciated until the 1970s; people thought all you had to worry about was avoiding the dose that produces acute toxicity. To what extent should the article imply moral turpitude on the part of Monsanto? I'm not sure there is a single right answer to that

• Sometimes, there may be a model about reality, for example, something about the effects of a chemical on an ecology, that has a lot of evidence to suggest its probability, and yet is not definitely "proven" (a misnomer in science, but meaning that evidence is very strong supporting it). Sometimes, as well, there may be strong evidence, and yet that has not yet made it into a review article. In both of these cases, i hope that a comprehensive article about a subject would be able to evaluate the state-of-the-art knowledge about a topic, and to represent the best understanding that a group of editors can achieve. Sometimes, this might even include mentioning of different models of reality with indications about the likelihood and the weight of evidence for each. I know that this does exist in many articles, and it is a reflection of reality. I think that reflecting reality from the most unbiased place possible would be a great goal for an article, and for a group of editors.

---I've often added or tried to add (see Marijuana (drug) material that states that a certain toxicity is suspected by not proven. The sourcing rules are tolerant of this if you can find a secondary source that says as much.

• I see this place as somewhat like a courtroom, when there is contention, and somewhat like an editor's roundtable when there is more cooperation. I like the latter but i see the need for the former on occasion. I think that being too frequently legalistic, though, slows and hinders the process which could be done in a spirit of cooperation.

---I hate it too. But I have to accept that the reason for it is that I choose to edit articles on controversial subjects almost exclusively. If I write articles on drugs like penicillin, no one is going to have a strong, differing opinion

• I tend not to be a legalistic person, and to feel like "Come on, people, can't we discuss the content, without citing guidelines as if they are a legal code?" I really can be cooperative, and i know the goal is to make the best articles possible. I know it's not the place for me to insert my pet theories in a synthesis, of course. This is a place to reflect what is known, and also to sometimes reflect what is not fully known. It's also a place to discuss weight and emphasis of representations, and what to include and exclude.

--Agree Wikipedia is less than it could be. I come close to quitting about twice a month. It probably won't change

• I have felt that some interactions with other editors have been contentious and legalistic when they didn't have to be -- and that's of course a judgment call -- and this got my hackles up a few times, and then i went the route of "fire with fire" and asked for others to help interpret MEDRS for me, based on a simplified hypothetical situation -- a thought experiment to make the issue more plain by exaggeration. I see how you and Jytdog could see that as a personal attack, as we all tend to see critique of our actions defensively -- at least i do. I did not mean it as an attack, and i left out any identification an presented instead a hypothetical situation.

--Both Jytdog are in some ways "conservative" editors (Jytdog will likely object to that characterization, but that's how I see it). We have both spent a lot of time in content disputes with people who are very anti-corporate and who (from my POV) see Wikipedia as a place to soapbox and expose the evils of capitalism. (I think capitalism kind of sucks myself, but the other systems do too). The disputes have been pretty heated in some cases, and I actually have people who dislike me so much that they routinely show up to vote against me in any ANI or RFC proceeding on general principle, irrespective of the issue under discussion. From my POV (and I hope you won't hold this against me), your early announcement that you were here to change the tone of the articles and educate people about the chemical hazards they faced set off some alarm bells that a new activist had joined our ranks who was determined to push their personal view of the Truth and would not abide by the rules that the community here has adopted by consensus. The addition of some material that I felt was poorly sourced and the undoing of reversions of those additions set off additional alarm bells. I likely over-reacted and I apologize for this. On the other hand I'd really appreciate it if you tried to keep the aspersions about motivations off the article talk pages.

I appreciate your note. I hope my response was helpful in explaining my interactions. I hope we can work together as it seems you and i have been doing in the last 12 hours on the Belgian Dioxin Affair.

SageRad (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Ideally I would have found a better source for that material rather than simply deleting it. Things got too confrontational Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

note - I have talked about WP:Truth only in response to you bringing it up, SageRad.

fwiw, i will say here, that i agree with you that we humans are limited, and we use the best tools we can (scientific method as practiced by the community of scientists; historigraphic tools) to discern 'reality' as best we can, at any given moment. And since each of us is limited, it takes dialogue - a community effort - to get there.

In Wikipedia, we do that in a certain way. Which is what I have spent a ton of time and effort been trying to get you to understand and work within. The foundation that policies and guidelines provide is important; the spirit of it is beautiful and makes this place possible. If you interpret my effort to teach you that, to be "legalistic" that is your problem. Not mine.

what i care about more than anything, is high quality content based on high quality sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; yes it is conservative - we provide information that is reliable. that means we are careful. there is tons of POV-pushing on the articles i work on, and nobody - not pro-industry people nor anti-industry people - get to add crappy content unchallenged. On articles I watch, you will figure out how to write good content (and I try to help people learn how to do that), or you will continue to fail to have your content "stick".

I have tried to help you - i spent an insane amount out of time and energy trying to help you - and in response you have attacked me. I will continue to explain my edits but I am done trying to help you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, i don't know about Truth, but i know there is a reality. We are trying to approximate reality with our models. Our models must include the nature of Power/Knowledge relations, which means that we must acknowledge that different entities have different interests in knowledge outcomes. However, we must remain dedicated to the *actual* knowledge, which is perhaps what is denigrated as "the Truth" but in fact is a simple sociological fact that different groupings of people want different outcomes. We must allow for this in articles, and explain the different interests in content held by different groups. This would be a way to escape the endless tussling we have been doing over which details get included in a story. It would be a way to make it objectively more accurate, as well.

I feel bad for how this has taken up your time and gotten you a bit upset. It's been frustrating to me, as well. I hope that we can get along and work together to make some great edits. SageRad (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

With good sourcing, we can create some great articles. SageRad (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

responding just to the last bit... that would be a good thing. i remain hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

David Gorski

Hi Sage, I noticed your removal of the citation from the Gorski article. I believe your reasoning is at variance with WP:ABOUTSELF, which states that self-published sources can be used for non-controversial statements about self. I did not revert as I have not editing that particular article before and did not want to give the appearance of WP:HOUND.

It is also my understanding that Gorski's blog represents an exception to the prohibition on using blogs and other self published sources for more general content, per WP:V, which says " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." A" pubmed search confirms that Gorski has an significant publication record in high quality, peer reviewed journals on the subjects of evidence-based medicine and alternative medicine. Again, I have not reverted anything, but am simply drawing this to your attention for consideration.

Enough said. As I do not edit any of these articles on a regular basis, I want to be careful to avoid both the appearance and reality of hounding, so I will not pursue this issue further irrespective of what you decide to do or not do.

Sorry for all this legalism. Its kind of what we do here. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 15:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would Gorski's blog be considered a reliable source for anything? Or, you might ask, why would his blog be a reliable source for anything about which he has no publications?

On the other hand, why would Chemical Industry Archives *not* be a reliable source for anything, and not admissible on a story about Monsanto's history regarding PCBs?

I want to cut through legalism and say simply that bias is bias, no matter what. It is clear to me that Gorski has an agenda and it colors his reliability greatly. He publishes completely untrue statements as facts, and he censors people who attempt to corrects such facts. Plain and simple. SageRad (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"He publishes completely untrue statements as facts, and he censors people who attempt to corrects such facts. Plain and simple" Interesting POV. I don't mean to harrass you here, so tell me if you want to drop this, but what exactly are these untrue statements? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

About glyphosate, for one thing. I don't have time to go into detail right now and i'm not going to get pulled into legalism. Just saying, he's a biased person publishing a blog with an agenda and i'm not going to see his blog used as a source for things to push an agenda, especially in a rarified atmosphere where other things that publish actual documents as evidence are not admitted due to allegations of bias. It seems bias is not bias if you called it "Science-Based" or pretend that it's "objective" and yet this is not acceptable to me. There is bias where it's not stated, and it's actually more honest to state your point of view rather than to pretend to be unbiased or objective. I think it's an epistemological failure of a lot of rationalization about what constitutes reliable knowledge. SageRad (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd just say that the bias that is most easily detected is the one that most differs from one's own (including mine, not a pot shot at you). So its interesting that you see Gorski as having an "agenda", which is exactly how I would tend to characterize many of his critics.

Wtih respect to the legalism: Its easy to trivialize legalism but without rules we're all just a bunch of guys going through and deleting everything that disagrees with our personal opinions. In fact it is the rules that currently are preventing me from going back and reverting the edits under discussion now. I think you misapplied the rules here in a couple of cases, and would request that you reconsider. These things tend to come back to haunt one later when somebody drags you into ANI for an unrelated issue. But I'll leave it up to you and not trouble you further, at least on the topic of Gorski. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree fully with your first statement.

I'm fully willing to have a dialogue about specific cases.

This page is sort of like my own blog, where i can make statements based on my own experience, which does not include PubMed indexed articles, but does include a huge amount of experience and deep thinking on the world.

As to the function of legalism at staving off anarchy, it is also possible that we can be a bunch of humans discussing what we think is true and what should populate the knowledge base of the human species, using common sense about the nature of power and knowledge, and about the basic kinds of deception that people often try to perform as a facade to try to force a fact into the human knowledge base that is not legally defensible, such as the statement that glyphosate acts upon an enzyme not found in humans.

We, as conscientious citizens of the planet Earth, vow to present reality as we understand it, as clearly as possible to other humans on the planet Earth.

To me, it's as simple as that. I will call out an over-zealous GMO critic just as loudly as i will call out an over-zealous GMO defender. I will see the reality as clearly as possible, without bias. That is what i think we must strive for in Wikipedia articles, as we form human knowledge.

And, of course, we must source claims as well as possible, especially controversial claims, and in areas where there are vastly differing theories, we should present serious minority opinions in a proper framing as such.

SageRad (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr Gorski banned me from commenting on his website "Science-Based Medicine" for presenting evidence that dissented from his claims. At least one other person i know was also banned from commenting on the website by Dr Gorski. SageRad (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)