Extended content
|
---|
|
- Delete, and merge key info on Back contamination. —As a professional working in astrobiology, my assessment is that this article is little more than a slanted alarmist editorial rant. The fact that biologists plan to play it safe, is not a synonym of impending doom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would urge you to take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return#Back_contamination ; the "Back contamination" section is in bad shape and would be improved by a merge. A version of what the main MSR article would look like in that case is preserved in the history before Robert reverted it.Warren Platts (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- A reasonable request; as long as only the main points are presented and referenced in Back contamination], not Walker's interpretations. (I changed my comment/vote above accordingly). BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would urge you to take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return#Back_contamination ; the "Back contamination" section is in bad shape and would be improved by a merge. A version of what the main MSR article would look like in that case is preserved in the history before Robert reverted it.Warren Platts (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I believe that the way Warren has handled this AfD may be a criterion for a Speedy Keep[edit]See: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" Basically as you can see from the history of the article, he rewrote and deleted most of my content. The history is: 1. He did a bold edit that removed most of the article. 2. I reverted the edit, pointed out that the material he deleted was backed up with citations, and should be discussed first on the talk page 3. He deleted it again. 4. I then gave up working on the article as you are recommended to do in an edit war and attempted discussion in the talk page. He joined in the discussion but continued to work on it in the main space during the edit war. 5. The discussion was unproductive. No other editor apart from Warren has worked on it except one editor who suggested a sentence for the lead section in the talk page, and bots and editors correcting typos, and other editors adding pov and editorial comment tags. As a result I consider it as still in the middle of an edit war. I am unable to work on it in the main space because Warren would immediately delete or revert my edits. For that reason I worked on it in my user space instead. Whether that is right or not, it can't be denied that it is still an edit war situation and that I am unable to work on the article to improve its chances for survival of AfD. I have just now tried a reversion to the state it was in before the edit war began so I can work on it, but Warren has already said on the talk page that he will revert and keep reverting my edits, so I don't expect this to last long. See his comment in Revert Robert's reversion : " I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. ". That has also been the general tone of the entire discussion to date, and the reason I feel I can't work on the article in main space myself, and why I consider it to be still in the middle of an extended edit war. In those circumstances I believe a speedy keep may be appropriate. An AfD would be appropriate if I am permitted to work on the article first without edit warring. Especially since the warring editor is the one proposing deletion. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
|
- Supreme facepalm of destiny. Gentlemen, there's no fighting in the war room. AfD is not the place for you to hash out your dispute. Each of you should make your point concisely and without bickering. Criminy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. Warren, I plan to edit this page to remove all the comments on the posts later today (someone has to do it), perhaps they could be copied over to the talk page for this page? Sometimes participants comment on other posts in an AfD discussion but just as a simple response e.g. if the delete proposal says that there are no citations it is reasonable to comment and say that you have just added some citations to the article to fix the issue mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh okay, collapsing is fine by me. What about what I just said to Warren, that a second Delete suggestion by the proposer of deletion for the article as a reply to a Keep is inappropriate in AfD? Robert Walker (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, guys, but we don't need more metadiscussion. We have asked for 3rd party comments in the past--no one took much interest (which ought to says something about the notability of the topic). So here we are. What we need is a rough concensus on whether to keep or delete this article. A vote followed by a substantive comment would be more helpful than comments about comments IMHO. Moreover, there are two completely different versions of the article floating out there: if you vote "Keep", be sure to specify which version you are referring to. Presumably if there is a merge, it won't be the 12,000 worder.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- 'Comment' Just to say, I am in the process of working on the article to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the delete proposals above. Particularly am working to make sure that every paragraph that says anything that could be regarded as controversial is properly attributed so I say that "xyz says that abc" throughout, so it is clear that my own POV is not present in the article, to deal with the objection that it is slanted. Also checking the citations for accuracy and making it easy for the reader to verify them. Also taking care to make it clear that all the way through it is thought by all those concerned to be a low probability existential risk to deal with criticism that it gives an alarmist impression. Also adding extra sections to express all the POVs I know about (published or notable ones) and with particular care to include POVs that are in favour of an early MSR prominently visible, to make sure the full range is included. Plus improving the overall structure of it and avoiding repetition. This is going to take a few days to complete, so it is somewhat mid-edit right now, any suggestions or recommendations welcomed! Robert Walker (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment To explain the length, Warren has continually asked me to prove that my paraphrases are accurate and keeps accusing me of cherry picking. I have made the sections longer with extensive paraphrasing and quotes in order to show that they report the original sources accurately. He still accuses me of cherry picking requiring inclusion of yet more material from the original sources which is why it has grown so long. I have just suggested on the talk page that I could put all this extra material into references "to assist editors in verifying my paraphrases" and this could reduce the size of the article considerably. I can write well and succintly when needed, but am finding it impossible to do so, in view of the need to have so much included in the body of the text to withstand his criticisms.Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- He also makes many requests to add new material to the article to address what he sees as its POV slant. E.g. recently required I add a section on an allegation by Zubrin that the whole thing is just a result of doomsday phobias by the scientists concerned. I don't have the original article for these allegations or the replies, yet, am willing to add this section once I do but of course all these requests add to the length of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pare down to four sentences and merge with Mars_sample_return_mission#Back_contamination. The article is an awful mess in its current state, but a review of the history shows that there are more approachable versions. More than a few sentences would be overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. After watching parts of this debate for a few weeks now, I'm going to go here with a reluctant Keep, and possibly only a temporary Keep. Two reasons: 1) It seems to me that a multiple-day and deeply-felt content dispute between two particular editors has moved to the AfD page; AfD's ought not to be decided that way, especially since in the many "tons" of phosphor that have been spilled in the verbosity of their defense of their positions, and their multiple versions and rapid changes of the article, it has been quite difficult to really figure out what a decent article might look like after editing over a longer period of time with input from more editors. 2) Although I don't personally "like" the position put forward in this article, I believe that Wikipedia is not censored and that view, especially a reasonably well-sourced representation of that view with citations to reliable sources, ought to be able to be encyclopedically covered by the Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that Wikipedia should not be censored. Therefore, since Robert is: (1) dead set on getting his POV[1] into Wikipedia; and (2) his POV is basically a rehash of the fringe International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (ICAMSR) POV, then let him lay out the argument that MSR represents a clear and present existential risk to Planet Earth in the ICAMSR article. I am pretty sure that Robert will veto this proposal, but it could form the basis of a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS nevertheless. Warren Platts (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have just done a word count as an attempt at a way to detect any bias in the article.
- Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Measure_of_bias_using_word_count
- It is clear that the ICAMSR form just a small part of the article. Indeed most of the material on concerns comes from the official ESF and NRC reports. Robert Walker (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- There is no way the article as is stands should be in article-space, since it's a clear POV content fork of Mars sample return mission. Additionally I see no issues here that couldn't be usefully covered in Mars sample return mission, Back-contamination or Sample return mission. I suggest userfication for the purposes of scavenging references before deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Have changed the main image for the article to one of the design proposals for a MSR Receiving facility. Hope this will help deal with perception of it as a POV fok of the main MSR article. Seems appropriate as a lot of the discussion centers on the safety of the receiving facility + whether that is the right approach at all. Robert Walker (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Mars sample return mission, after toning down the POV. This is pretty clearly a WP:POVFORK and belongs in the parent article. AfD is not a way of resolving content disputes. The topic is very clearly notable, and it may be that an agreed-on Mars sample return mission#Back contamination section eventually gets spun out into its own article. However, this article is not it. Some of this material should probably also go into a Mars sample return mission#Mars Receiving Facility section, which is closely related to, but logically separate from, the back-contamination concerns. -- 202.124.72.30 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, just point of information, this article started as a section in Mars sample return mission and was split into a separate article as a result of discussion here: Talk:Mars sample return mission#Suggestion for a new article .22Back_contamination concerns for a Mars_sample_return.22 Robert Walker (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Mars sample return mission. This lengthy essay can be easily summarized with a few sentences and references to a few neutral overview sources. There is no need for an original research screed such as this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The Rough Consensus[edit]
Extended content
|
---|
Well, it's been over a week now. The tally is 70% in favor of VASTLY paring down the article, and merging what's left into the main MSR article. The argument is that the article as it currently exists is a WP:POVFORK, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, virtually fringe POV. Of the votes to keep, one is from the author and sole editor of the article: he argues that (1) the topic is notable enough to warrant a nearly 16,000 word article containing 109 references; (2) an "Objective NPOV" is not appropriate for the article because it contains an ethical dimension; (3) the article is NPOV because all of the many POVs are presented. The other (reluctant) keep argues that (1) the article should be kept at least temporarily because the AfD is an inappropriate attempt to settle a dispute between two editors; and (2) deleting the article would amount to WP:CENSORSHIP. To these good faith arguments, the majority view would respond that (1) the mere fact of a long-standing editorial dispute does entail that the AfD was not made in good faith for good reasons; (2) there are only 2 relevant POVs here: (a) the mainstream view that MSR as proposed by NASA is safe because appropriate precautions will be undertaken; (b) a minority POV that MSR as proposed by NASA represents a potential existential threat to Planet Earth; (3) the proposed merge is not censorship because the main MSR article still mentions the minority POV. Whereas we note that the only notable proponents of the latter POV are the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (whose members are notable mainly for their fringe scientific views)[2] and the author of the article[1]. Therefore, we feel that a 16,000 word explication gives undue weight to what is, in our opinion, a virtually fringe POV, and that a brief mention in the main MSR article is more than adequate. In addition, we note that there already exists an ancillary article on ICAMSR. The minority POV is probably best explored in that article; as an analogy, an article on the dispute over Flat Earth theory would give undue weight to a minority POV, whereas an article on the Flat Earth Society is appropriate. Therefore, IMHO the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS seems to be that: (1) a vastly pared down version of the article be merged with the Mars sample return mission main article; (2) more detailed content on the minority POV expressed by ICAMSR be merged with the ICAMSR ancillary article; and (3) that the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return be deleted with a redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Warren Platts (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|
References[edit]
- ^ a b http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913 Need For Caution For An Early Mars Sample Return - Opinion Piece
- ^ http://www.icamsr.org International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (ICAMSR)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.