Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-12 Peppered moth evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-12 Peppered moth evolution 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-12 Peppered moth evolution

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: MSTCrow 08:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Peppered moth evolution and Talk:Peppered moth evolution

Who's involved?

Myself and user:Michael Johnson

What's going on?

There is much debate on the factual merits behind the peppered moth in an evolutionary sense, as it was unmasked as a hoax in the NYT in 2002. I offered to have the article into hoax and non-hoax segments, but this was refused and reverted by the other user. The other user has, against WP, decided that major newspapers are not to be used as sources, and factual data can be dismissed based on percieved ideological preferences.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like for the other user to be made aware that major newspapers can be used as sources, that the ideological preference of the source, if any, is not in and of itself grounds for exclusion, and that both sides should be accomodated in the article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes.

[edit] Mediator response

Please note that I have no official status. I am a volunteer. I am here to help all interested parties. Rick Norwood 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

In reading the article for the first time, two things stand out. First, the introductory section is very technical, and does not follow the guideline of keeping the introduction accessable to all readers.

Second, the disputed section is very informal, and does not follow the guideline of maintaining an encyclopedic tone.

I hope all parties to this dispute will work together on the following.

1. Make the introduction accessable to all readers. 2. In the criticism section simply report the two different points of view and do not try to resolve the issue. 3. As for the newspaper report, to characterize it as proving that peppered moth evolution is a hoax is an overstatement. A more exact characterization of the newspaper report is that there is controversy in the scientific community over peppered moth evolution. The use of the word "hoax" is unnecessarily sensational. Newspapers reporting on scientific subjects almost always base their reporting on specific scientific publications. It is always better to cite the original source rather than a secondary source such as a newspaper or popular article.

Timeline (12/06/06) [contributed by User:Silence]

• 06:38: User:MSTCrow deletes two paragraphs of the article without explanation.[1]
• 06:45: User:MSTCrow adds an unreferenced "Hoax" section to the bottom of the article.[2]
• 06:45: User:Guettarda reverts the previous two edits.[3]
• 06:47: User:MSTCrow deletes the entire contents of the article, replacing the whole article with a single, unreferenced "Hoax" section.[4]
• 06:48: User:MSTCrow finishes deleting the article's last reference, and also deletes the article's category and series-template in the process.[5]
• 06:54–07:03: User:MSTCrow adds a sentence stating that the New York Times had "broke the news that the peppered moth evolution theory was a fraud", and adds two new sources (both New York Times articles). (MSTCrow fails to note who wrote one of those New York Times articles: Judith Hooper, author of the highly controversial book Of Moths and Men, which has been largely dismissed by the scientific community.)[6]
• 07:14: User:MSTCrow adds a comment to the Talk page stating that he had "removed all fraudalent information" (i.e. the entire original article) and "put in a rough overview of the known facts" (i.e. the "Hoax" section).[7]
• 07:54: User:Michael Johnson reverts the article changes.[8]
• 07:58: User:Michael Johnson adds a comment to the Talk page, citing a contradictory reference.[9]
• 08:20: User:MSTCrow reverts back to his version.[10]
• 08:21: User:MSTCrow dismisses Johnson's reference as "clearly biased", and asks for more references.[11]
• 08:23: User:MSTCrow proposes the idea of creating a "pro-hoax" and an "anti-hoax" section (a way to frame the entire layout of the article in such a way that emphasizes its being a "hoax").[12]
• 08:29: User:Michael Johnson reverts the article changes.[13]
• 08:31: User:Michael Johnson asks MSTCrow for any reference "not related to 'creation science' or 'intelligent design'.... Scientific source, that is, not a newspaper report."[14]
• 08:33: User:MSTCrow states that "newspaper reports are credible sources" and that Johnson is "excluding facts based on an ideological basis".[15]
• 08:37: User:Michael Johnson disagrees that his actions are ideologically-motivated, stating that the newspaper article "is simply a report that some person claims this is a hoax, not evidence of a hoax at all".[16]
• 08:41: User:MSTCrow states that he has forwarded the issue to the Mediation Cabal.[17]

Comment by Cabal mediator: There is work to be done in this article, and a revert war is not helping. First, the use of the word "hoax" is POV. A hoax is a deliberate fraud. Nobody on either side, as far as I know, thinks that is happening here. On the other hand, there is a scientific controversy over the details of peppered moth evolution. That is an interesting topic that belongs in this article. It would do all contributors to the article credit if they could report both sides of the controversy, using referenced scientific sources rather than newspaper reports or other popular sources. As a general rule of serious research, you always want to cite primary sources rather than secondary sources when primary sources are available.

In particular, I think that MSTCrow can show his good faith by doing the following. Read the review in Nature by Jerry Coyne (if your local library does not have a copy, they should be able to get a copy by interlibrary loan) and write a brief, impartial summary of what that review says.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion

Dr. Coyne's review in Nature is available on-line from his web site: http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf (it says nothing about a hoax, as there clearly wasn't one). --Jibal 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this information will help resolve the issue. Rick Norwood 12:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow has been off line for a while. I'm going to keep the case open to give him a chance to get back on line and respond. Rick Norwood 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have used Jibal's citation link in the article and added information from it to the book review paragraph. - Rgrant 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow has been quite active in recent days. He's had two weeks to respond. Is it about time to wrap up this mediation?--RattBoy 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply from the mediator:

The introductory paragraph is much improved.

The paragraph on criticism still needs a lot of work. I'll pick just one example of bad prose: "In the review, Coyne does not dismiss evolution, does not allege that the classic experiments were conducted in dishonesty, and does not report that he or Majerus have disproved whether the moths evolved in sync with air pollutants". There are others.

But the main problem is the use of weasel words and the lack of citations of important points. Again, I'll just give one example: "Coyne, who has spoken out against creationism, later claimed that he is misquoted by creationists." This is vague and unreferrenced, quite aside from the abrupt change from past to present tense. Where did Coyne make this claim? What is one example of a misquote, and where did the misquote appear?

An encyclopedia article must be specific, not general, and the references should make it easy for readers to follow a link and confirm for themselves that the statement is accurate.

When I originally reverted MSTCrow's edit it was to protect a flawed, but basicly accurate, article from being replaced with an entirely false and misleading article. The comments above relate to the revised article, which is an improvement on the original if not perfect. I'm a bit new to all of this and can't understand where this is going. MSTCrow seems to have moved on, there doesn't seem to be anything to compromise on or to mediate. --Michael Johnson 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear mediator: your comments here do not go to the issues at hand. The desire for better prose is a general desire that isn't what this mediation request was about. MSTCrow deleted a consensus article in its entirety and replaced it with an erroneous claim about a hoax; this misinformation was reverted. Calling that a revert war is a mischaracterization. MSTCrow then asked for mediation on the use of news articles as sources, but that is a mischaracterization; one of MSTCrow's references was to a book review, which is not a news article, and his other reference was to a news article that did not make any of the claims in MSTCrow's edit. OTOH, numerous scientifically authoritative sources contradict those claims. On those grounds, the mediation request should be resolved by rejecting MSTCrow's edits, so everyone can go back to improving the factual encyclopedic article that was in place before those edits. Your suggestion that MSTCrow could demonstrate his good faith by providing an objective analysis of Coyne's review in Nature of Majerus's book was a good one, but it seems that he has declined that opportunity to demonstrate his good faith. -- Jibal 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a mediator, as I understand it, is to help all parties stop fighting and work toward a better article. It seems to have worked in this case -- the fighting seems to have stopped. The comment about the prose was in the nature of an aside -- bad prose riles me, I can't help it.

As I pointed out in my first post, writers for Wikipedia should turn to primary sources, that is, to the original publications, not to newspaper reports on those publications. But you misunderstand the goal of a mediator when you suggest that I "reject MSTCrow's edits". Mediators do not have the power to reject, only to suggest.

Yesterday, I asked MSTCrow if he wanted to continue the mediation. He has not responded. If I do not hear from him by Monday, I will consider the mediation closed. I do hope people continue to work to improve the article. It is an interesting subject. Rick Norwood 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Today is Monday. I have not heard from MSTCrow. I'm marking the case closed. Rick Norwood 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)