 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThe 13 August 2015 version of the ecosystem health page violates neutrality by advocating and promoting a particular point of view and violates the “no original thought” rule by critiquing various references (“these critiques result from faulty logic”).
The purpose of the ecosystem health Wikipedia entry is to document, in a neutral manner, using in-line citations, history of the usage of the term “ecosystem health,” including criticisms of that usage, as there is NO scientific consensus.
Neutrality is violated when a page editor advocates, endorses a particular usage, and suppresses (eliminates) citations from previous versions of the page that conflict with his/her point of view, as in the 13 August 2015 version of this page.
“Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”
Steamer405 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Revision of 18:59 28 August 2015: Reverted due to editorializing. The author is welcome to add material to the article, including other points of view, but they must be drawn from literature already published elsewhere and sources must be identified using in-line citations. Wikipedia is not a platform for editorializing, and has a no original thought rule: “Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”
Steamer405 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Revision of 23:07 28August 2015
Note to EcoHealth 57: Thank you for your contributions to the ecosystem health page.
You seem to think that discussion of criticisms of ecosystem health caters to some fringe element that can be ignored or dismissed. To the contrary, there is significant serious mainstream research attempting to address questions of ecosystem functional outcomes and it would be an extreme bias to not report challenges to ecosystem health definitions.
For example, Science magazine, 15 June, 2012, page 1393:
"When it comes to ecosystems there is no agreement on what it means to be healthy. On page 1438 of this issue, Woodward et al. show that different conclusions on the health of stream ecosystems can be reached depending on which combinations of metrics are used to assess them."
Would you please ensure that your content conforms to the rules of Wikipedia or it will be removed:
1. Verifiability Rule: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
2. No original thought (which means no editorializing): “Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”
Note that the original ecosystem health article conveys the work of others, properly cited; it is not an opinion piece by the Wikipedia authors as you seem to think.
3. Maintain neutral point of view: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Note that the original ecosystem health article drew attention to both the reported utility and reported limitations of the concept. It is utterly inappropriate for a Wikipedia author to advocate one point of view.
4. No personal attacks: “Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.”
This includes your statements such as “Whoever proposed this statement fails to recognize,” “warped perception,” “The initial drafter of this piece (likely ********) does not understand the concept of ecosystem health and his rants are...”