Talk:Marcus R. Ross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

[edit] Posters & similar ephemera

  • Posters are not "scientific papers" in any substantial sense -- they are short written pieces set up in booths for conference attendees to browse. They are neither of substantial length/depth, nor do they receive any peer review. You could present a poster stating that the moon was made of green cheese, as long as you gave it a plausible title & wrapped the contents up in scientific-sounding jargon.
  • http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=25 does not state that posters are paper: it states "In what is ostensibly a scientific paper, Nelson and co-author argue...", where "ostensibly" means 'having the outward appearance of (rather than having the reality of)'.
  • The GSA also call Ontogenetic Depth as a Complexity Metric for the Cambrian Explosion a "poster"[1]. It was only one of 39 posters in that session, and the conference had more than 20 such poster sessions.[2][3]
  • As I have said, Intelligent Design And Young-Earth Creationism - Investigating Nested Hierarchies Of Philosophy And Belief was simply a 15 minute presentation as part of a forum on "Professional Issues",[4] specifically the "History and Future of the Relationship Between the Geosciences and Religion: Litigation, Education, Reconciliation?"[5] Ross' presentation was only one of 13 at this forum.

It is clear from the above that none of these were substantive papers worthy of mention in a wikipedia article. HrafnTalkStalk 09:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Posters presented at meetings of reliable scientific organizations do not need to be "scientific papers" in a "substantial" sense in order to be included in a Selected Bibliography of a notable scientist, as here.
  • No, http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=25 doesn't state that posters ARE papers (didn't say it did): it states "In what is ostensibly a scientific paper, Nelson and co-author argue...", where "ostensibly" means "intended for display : open to view" or apparent, evident, or conspicuous.
  • The GSA does call Ontogenetic Depth as a Complexity Metric for the Cambrian Explosion a paper right there at the top of the page.[6]
  • Presentations and/or posters presented at meetings of reliable scientific organizations do not need to be "substantive papers" in order to be "worthy of mention in a wikipedia article" -- or, as noted above, in order to be included in a Selected Bibliography of a notable scientist, as here. Goo2you (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your first statement is a bare assertion and thus worthless. I can equally claim "Posters presented at meetings of reliable scientific organizations do need to be "scientific papers" in a "substantial" sense in order to be included in a Selected Bibliography of a notable scientist, as here." Either substantiate your assertions or don't waste my time by making them.
  • You stated, on the basis of http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=25 that "The Society of Developmental Biology considers "posters" equivalent to 'scientific papers'" -- this is fallacious. "Ostensibly", as the examples in your citations indicate, means having a false appearance ("His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity", "had been ostensibly frank as to his purpose while really concealing it") -- i.e. something that is "ostensibly a scientific paper" is not really a scientific paper.
  • No, they only number it as a paper, they call it part of "Paleontology/Paleobotany (Posters) II".[7]
  • Your last statement is likewise a bare assertion, and is as worthless as your first.
So, Goo2you, do you have any other tendentious arguments to make? Perhaps you'd also like to include his high school science fair project (there's a good chance that it was organised under the umbrella of some "reliable scientific organization")? Or can we leave off the trivia? HrafnTalkStalk 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that we've been presented with no evidence that any of these insubstantial pieces have been formally published (e.g. as part of a conference anthology). While this, in and of itself would not necessarily preclude their inclusion in a well-maintained bibliography, it certainly lessens the weight given to inclusion. Overall, the inclusion of such ephemera would appear to violate the following clause in WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." These are short, unpublished pieces, in two cases co-authored (rather than sole authored) and outside Ross's field of expertise (vertebrate paleontology). Their weight is thus negligible, and a strong argument can thus be made for their exclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, you are tendentiously and disruptively engaging in an edit war - that is, "repeatedly revert[ing] content edits to [this] page" - by removing well-cited non-controversial bibliographic references to a notable academic's papers, posters, and presentations. WP:TE notes, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[8] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." As defined at WP:DIS, you are repeatedly and unnecessarily reverting this BLP info "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles" -- namely, me on this one. Dispute regarding your editing at Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography has been noted here. Please give notice there and here that you will be ceasing this behavior. Thank you. Goo2you (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Hrafn's logic on this one. If we were to allow the inclusion of these posters for this particular guy, we would have to allow them in all other articles. But most importantly, please read the top of the section in question. Selected Bibliography, not Exhaustive Bibliography. The posters are not noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. Baegis (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn's logic is flawed. No one is calling for an exhaustive bibliography; but papers, posters and presentations at RS scientific conferences are certainly notable and "noteworhty" enough to be included in this article. Goo2you (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link needed

This guy elevates Cognitive dissonance into an art. A link should probably be provided somewhere in the article. Raul654 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)