THC Science

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Kendrick mass
Status	Closed
Request date	14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Kkmurray (talk)
Parties involved	User:Kkmurray, User:Nick Y., User:Kehrli
Mediator(s)	Lord Roem
Comment	Parties leaving mediation - case closed

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

Who is involved?[edit]

What is the dispute?[edit]

There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that has been discussed at Talk:Kendrick_mass. Multiple secondary sources [1] define Kendrick mass as having units of Dalton (also known as the atomic mass unit). A primary source has been identified that can be interpreted as being consistent with a new Kendrick unit [2] but a the new unit is defined only by inference. No other primary or secondary sources defining a Kendrick unit have been identified, but one side argues that the definition of a new unit is more consistent with the general principles of metrology. The two sides of the dispute can be summarized as "Kendrick mass is in Dalton units" (Kkmurray, Nick Y.) and "Kendrick mass is in Kendrick units" (Kherli).

What would you like to change about this?[edit]

Identify appropriate primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass per WP:VERIFY. Achieve a consensus on the definition of Kendrick mass as it appears in these sources. Identify minority views from the literature on the definition of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on what is a balanced article content on Kendrick mass according to the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and appropriate coverage of alternate definitions of Kendrick mass. Achieve a consensus on the question of whether there is enough evidence supporting a Kendrick unit to justify calling the article "Kendrick (unit)" rather than "Kendrick mass."

How do you think we can help?[edit]

A mediator can help by looking at the primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass and applying WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV to help achieve the appropriate sourcing and balanced content in the article. There are numerous sources on Kendrick mass in the scientific literature, but the scope of the dispute is narrow.

Mediator notes[edit]

I will be contacting the parties to see if they are accepting of the mediation process. If they do accept, I will need to read over alot of material so that I understand the full context of this case. -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like theis moved to the talk page to centralize discussion. I ask that the parties write up a statement which does two things -- 1) list the controversies within the dispute (as it usually is based on interpreting many different policies) and 2) explain where you believe consensus and agreement can be reached or possible areas of agreement. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

Parties have been invited to post opening statements on the talk page. Two of the three parties have not been online for several days. Awaiting their responces before we proceed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opening statements posted - moving into process now. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proceeding to close. Process is not fruitful and parties moving to oppose future mediation in the case. Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Re: What is the dispute?

I would never say "Kendrick mass is in Kendrick units", because a mass can always be indicated in any unit, as long as it is a unit of dimension mass, of course. I would subscribe the following statements, however:

The first formula in the article Kendrick mass is wrong, even though it is indeed sourced from many papers.
There are even more papers and books that define the same formula differently, in a not compatible way
It is not ok to "scale" the unit dalton to a new value 1 Da = m(¹²CH₂)/14
The only formally correct definition of the Kendrick analysis is here:[3] (I should not say this, since I have not read all papers about Kendrick analysis. However, I think it is true.)
The Kendrick analysis as defined by the papers cited by Kkmurray indeed require the introduction of a new unit of mass, because "scaling" the Dalton is against all scientific standards.
It is possible to avoid introducing new units by using the modulo function. This is described in the literature.

Kehrli (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What would you like to change about this?

There is too much faulty and contradictory terminology in the scientific literature. There are sources for almost every possible terminology. Most of it is plain wrong when it comes to terminology. We need to find the terminology that corresponds best to the international consensus of terminology in metrology (the VIM). This terminology can then be understood by most users of Wikipedia, because it is not a jargon of a scientific fringe community. Kehrli (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manual of Style

Scientific and technical units

In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always; for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1.

Some disciplines often use non-SI units or write SI units differently from BIPM-prescribed format. When the reliable sources in a field normally use SI units, articles should do so; when they do not, articles should follow reliable sources. For instance, it is cc in an article on Honda motorcycles engines and not cm3; the term "micron" (rather than micrometre) is also still in widespread use in certain disciplines. Such non-standard units or unit names are always linked on first use.

The units "cc" are in no way meeting the international consensus on terminology, but they are what is used in motorcycle engines. The motorcycle industry should adopt standard units but they don't and we reflect that "cc" is the common unit in the field.--Nick Y. (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The units "cc" (cubic centimeters) actually meet very nicely the international consensus on terminology. This is even a SI unit. There is no other unit that is more standard than this one. It can be argued that the symbol "cc" is not the correct symbol for "cubic centimeters", but this is a relatively minor issue and in no way compares to the issues that we discuss here. Here we discuss a fundamental flaw in scientific communication, where some chemists want to change the definition of the dalton (what they call rescaling). Kehrli (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic:

my suggestions comply with the most current scientific literature on that topic. Therefore, this MoS actually supports my argument. Kehrli (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other MoS principles when it comes to units and quantities:

Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.

The terminology proposed by Nick and Kermit is highly ambiguous and ill defined. The terminology I propose is strictly according to the well defined principles of VIM (the international vocabulary of metrology) and there is no ambiguity.

Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.

The terminology proposed by Nick and Kermit is only familiar to chemists. The terminology I propose is familliar to all scientists, all people working in commerce and trade, which means to many more people.

International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

The terminology I propose is strictly according to the well defined principles of VIM (the international vocabulary of metrology) and therefore is more international.

In conclusion: wikipedia manual of style favors my arguments 4 to 0.

Kehrli (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't take issue with the importance of the Manual of Style, I think that the core issue here is verifiability, the assignment of due weight to the appropriate sources, and not going beyond those sources into original research. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The appropriate source for terminology on metrology is the VIM, the International vocabulary of metrology and maybe the ISO 80000. They both confirm my arguments and strongly oppose the terminology proposed by Kermit and Nick. Kehrli (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that verifiability is important here. I think we should all agree that we should use the prevailing definitions and usage in the scientific field of the article being edited. This goes to both MoS and verifiability. It is accurate to state that the majority of peer reviewed articles involving the Kendrick Mass use the concept as a scaling factor and use Dalton's for units. "Right" or "wrong" that is what is the prevailing usage and definitions in the literature. I'll break this up into two questions for us to answer with yes or no answers each. Now, be honest. We must find points of mutual agreement.:--Nick Y. (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the majority of peer reviewed articles involving the Kendrick Mass use the concept as a scaling factor and use Dalton's for units?

Agree--Nick Y. (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--(also, all of the secondary sources use this concept) --Kkmurray (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree--As I have shown before [4], Marshall sometimes uses Dalton and sometimes uses dimensionless. There is no majority use. Terminology by chemists seems completely random. Kehrli (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Nick gave a very different statement here [5]. He wrote about the Kendrick mass: "There is no agreed upon definition and many sources define it very differently." Now he suddenly claims that there is a majority definition. Nick, if you are sincere you should change your vote to disagree because deep inside you know that there is no real majority view on this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Is this practice flawed in some manner or another or could use some improvement?

Agree--Nick Y. (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree--(not convinced that the treatment is a priori flawed - Marshall's approach and Hatcher's generalization produce the desired result) --Kkmurray (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--redefining the dalton is not only flawed, it is also illegal. Kehrli (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit, the question was "Is this practice flawed in some manner or another or could use some improvement?", not "Is this practice a priori flawed?". Could you please answer the questions instead of weaseling out? By the laws of formal logic, with your disagree you state that there is no space for improvements on the terminology on Kendrick mass. This is so obviously wrong that not even you can believe that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This is the truth vs. verifiability issue that is at the heart of WP:VERIFY (and that I hope we can ultimately address here). Can we "improve" the definition of Kendrick mass from a metrology standpoint? Maybe. Will this improvement help analytical chemists identify unknown compounds? Doubtful. Are these improvements verifiable? I say no; you disagree. Let's see if we can get some mediation of this last question. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you changed your opinion from Disagree to maybe. That is a start. Unfortunately after that you start weaseling again. This is not about the question whether applying a correct terminology will improve scientific results (truth). It is about the question whether Wikipedia should use ambiguous and faulty terminology that is not in line with the international consensus just because some researchers (verifiably) use it. Please answer the questions from Nick, nothing else. Kehrli (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search for common ground[edit]

I have here a set of questions on which we hopefully can find a consensus:

Are there verifiable rules about terminology in quantitative science, trade and commerce?

Agree, it is called the VIM (International vocabulary of metrology). It is the common ground of IUPAP, IUPAC and ISO. Kehrli (talk)

Do some scientists verifiably keep to the VIM terminology in the subject matter?

Agree, in this paper they largely do: [6] Kehrli (talk)

Do most scientists in this matter verifiably not keep to the VIM terminology and use their own jargon instead?

Agree. In many papers they do not.Kehrli (talk)

Is the jargon at least used in a consistent manner?

Disagree. Many jargon users (also Marshall) do not even use it consistently within the same publication. Kehrli (talk)

Should Wikipedia use one of these jargon terminologies just because it is verifiably in use?

Disagree. The fact that some people do something in a verifiable way is not a sufficient reason to use it in Wikipedia. More formally: WP:VERIFY is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement. This logical fallacy is described in the necessary and sufficient condition article. Kehrli (talk)

I hope by answering these questions frankly with "agree" or "disagree" we will find common ground. Kehrli (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]