Talk:Frozen Ark

Content dispute

I have tried to engage Alexm1313 (talk · contribs) in a discussion about content he has added to this article, specifically material in the lede regarding the prospects of future extinctions and the supposed efficacy of this project. As I pointed out on his talk page:

• There is no need for a discussion of rates of extinction on this page, as that topic is thoroughly covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and covering it here simply means that the information must be maintained in multiple places.
• There is no evidence that the information will be extremely important to future scientists. Clearly, there is a hope that this will be the case (else the project is useless), but there is no evidence to support this claim.
• Stylistically, one would never say "animals are facing a huge amount of extinction".
• The expectation that 1/4 of the world's species will go extinct over the next 30 yeas is uncited, and is unnecessary in this article. By linking to the article on extinction, we can provide a link to the necessary information without duplicating it (or providing incorrect information) in this article. Duplication of information across multiple articles is called content forking and is discouraged.

However I have been unable to elicit a response from this user other than a continued re-insertion of the disputed material. Other opinions are welcome. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the other hand, although stated above that there is no evidence that future scientists will need animals' genetic information, there doesn't need to be. Through history we have seen animals go extinct and if we have leanred anything, it is to preserve aniamls in case of eextiction which is the purpose of the Frozen Ark. Therefore extiction is directly relevant and something that needs to be addressed in the Frozen Ark article because that is the fear and reason why the Frozen Ark was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camccarthy2631 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed content at Frozen Ark, other editor won't engage in discussion

I have made several attempts to engage Alexm1313 (talk · contribs) both on their own user talk page and on Talk:Frozen Ark regarding content in the article. The user, on several occasions, reverted edits I had made without comment or edit summary, and seems unwilling to listen to input on the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexm1313 has finally started to join the discussion. It appears he is a new editor who was honestly confused regarding WP talk page practice. Given that he seems to be getting properly involved now, is the RFC tag still needed? Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Tag removed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

References

This edit added a number of "references" to the Consortium section. However, merely linking to the home page of the named entity does not provide a verification of that entity's involvement in this project. These references will be removed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Clarke

Bryan Clarke already has a complete article on Wikipedia. There is no need to reproduce the entire contents of that article verbatim in this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed and tagged

I suspect that the article is being copied from some of their promotional material. I've trimmed it down to just the introduction and added a couple of relevant tags, the most important at this point being notability. Much of the remaining content should be removed or rewritten because it presents unsourced opinions as facts (as mentioned previously in Talk:Frozen_Ark#Content_dispute). --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Alexm1313 (talk · contribs) has ignored the inputs of others and acted as if the own the page, reverting the edits of Ronz (talk · contribs). There seems to be no getting through to this user. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Hi WikiDan, I am a wikipedia newbie. I am completely confused at where I am supposed to write to you. Help! Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexm1313 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Don't worry too much as where to write, although it would be best to avoid editing the article until we can get through the confusion. Take a look at the comments on your talk page. It would be best to respond there, but here is fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am here :)

Thank you guys, done lots of messages, hoping they get through somewhere... :) newbie, promise I am not being mean.
I have written on walls, not sure if it is right, just trying to check that everything is ok.
right I see you have removed most stuff that you feel isn't quite what you want.
Am I allowed to edit the page then? Considering I created it and I know what it is about.
What is happening with this? Can I be an editor now we are in communication?
I answered some questions elsewhere on your walls (wikidan and Ronz)
Best wishes, Alex
Alexm1313 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of notability tag

I suggest that this page still has a number of issues that need dealing with, although I think the notability tag should be removed. Petecl (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed sections

• Someone else has modified the beginning paragraph. That actually reads a lot more consise.
• Removed the aims of the ark, as this was raised by wikidan
• Removed any text that was surplus

Looking at this page now, it reads fine, and not seeing any of the issues raised anymore.
Best wishes, Alex Alexm1313 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I performed some additional copy-editing and removed the tags. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed all the unsourced sections as well as the section that had one source that didn't mention Frozen Ark at all and was only vaguely related to the article topic. As I pointed out before, I believe this material was copied from promotional material for Frozen Ark. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. However, I think some text should still be introduced concerning notable organizations and individuals associated with the project, particularly if they already have their own Wikipedia articles, as some did. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some more detail could be included in this article. I think it would be interesting to know that there is a large international consortium involved in this project. Perhaps a full list is not needed in Wikipedia though. It would also be worth mentioning that there is an advisory board led by an eminant scientist. Alexbateman (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to what the sources verify. --Ronz (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the point: the sources do verify what you removed. There is nothing wrong with citing a primary source for information about itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From my interpretation of WP:SELFPUB and WP:PSTS, the article should be based upon independent sources, with primary and self-published sources filling important details. We've no sources indicating that these are important details. Am I overlooking an independent source? --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CORP applies here too, which states "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." If this article says "The Frozen Ark lists xxx and yyy as members" (where xxx and yyy are notable enough to have their own articles), such a statement requires citing the primary source and nothing else. Any time we state what a source says about itself, we must cite that source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic here. I believe RonZ has taken an overly-strict interpretation of WP:SELFPUB. The self-published material may be used as information about the publisher of the information itself, so long as the material is not unduly self-serving, does not make claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the source. Given that, I think Frozen Ark's own website can be cited for the list of companies in the consortium and the list of scientists associated with the project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're at an impasse then. Anyone have a preference for the next WP:DR step to take? Maybe get some others' interpretation of SELFPUB or PSTS? --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the available steps of dispute resolution, I'd say that WP:Editor assistance is not the right path, as we already have several fairly experienced editors on the case. WP:Third opinion isn't appropriate, as we already have four opinions in play (including the original author's). The next step would be WP:RFC. I think we may be at that point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, since none of the noticeboards appear to fit well. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? I wasn't even aware we were having a dispute, let alone an impasse. It's just a discussion. Ronz wants to "stick to what the sources verify." Nobody disagrees. We're having a discussion about whether it's valid to cite a primary source making statements about itself. The policies and guidelines suggest that it is — provided the article doesn't itself take a position, but rather attributes the claim to a source.

For example, it would be wrong to say "Professor X is a member of Frozen Ark's advisory board" while citing the primary source. On the other hand, it is perfectly fine to say "Frozen Ark lists Professor X as a member of its advisory board." That latter statement is an objective fact, completely verifiable, and the only place that the statement can possibly be verified is at the primary source. We don't need a secondary source to say that "Frozen Ark lists Professor X as a member of its advisory board" because we already have Frozen Ark making the claim, and the article already attributes the claim to Frozen Ark.

I don't see why there would be a dispute about this. What am I missing? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute arises because there is not a consensus on how to interpret the guidelines. Because Wikipedia is not a democracy, the simple fact that more people involved in the discussion feel the self-published sources are valid than don't is not really a deciding factor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't detect a dispute in this discussion. Yes I see a difference of interpretation. I think I resolved that difference in my previous comment. Ronz rightly removed material that didn't need to be there, material that this article claimed as fact based on a primary source. I can't imagine why anyone knowledgeable about policies and guidelines would have a problem with the removal. All I did was point out that a primary source is fine to cite if the article does not state a claim as a fact, but rather attributes the claim to the source, as I illustrated in my example above. I don't see Ronz or anyone else disagreeing with that point, just discussion about interpretation.

If there's any dispute here, it might be whether the information should be included at all. That's a whole separate argument having nothing to do with verifiability or sources. I argued early on in this section that notable entities affiliated with this project should be mentioned. Nobody seems to have addressed that. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's best if we can clearly identify the dispute. From my perspective, the dispute is whether or not we need further references in order to justify restoring the lists that I removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware anyone was advocating restoring the lists. I was advocating mentioning only notable affiliates, not the entire list. Even so, for the entire list, proper phrasing ("The Frozen Ark project lists the following...") says only what the project claims about itself, so only a primary source reference is logically required. Phrasing it so that Wikipedia, not Frozen Ark, is making a claim, would indeed require other references. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what others are proposing - restoration of some portions or all of the lists. My perspective is that whatever they restore from those lists, there should be independent, reliable sources to justify the information. It doesn't matter whether or not affiliates themselves are notable. What matters is that we have justification for mentioning them at all in this article.

This is a common problem in new article about corporations, projects, etc. Because there is little information to include from independent sources, editors want to include minutia from press releases and official websites. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

...which, I will point out again, is acceptable according to WP:CORP, within reason, of course. I don't think we're talking about minutiae here. Notable entities affiliated with the project are relevant. I disagree that "it doesn't matter whether or not the affiliates themselves are notable." If they weren't notable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The fact is, WP:CORP and WP:SELFPUB are quite clear that there are instances where primary sources are proper to cite. If you disagree with the intent of the guidelines, well, this talk page isn't the place to discuss that.

I dom't think that's your disagreement, however. Rather, you seem to disagree with the relevance of the material you deleted. That is another issue entirely. Relevance can be determined a number of ways. One way, the way you advocate, is to look for secondary sources mentioning the affiliates. Another way, obviously, is to ask yourself "would a reader be curious about who or what is backing this project?" If so, the encyclopedic value of the article is enhanced by including the information. A third way to determine relevance is to examine the notability of the affiliates — if they all consisted of unknown street folks, there would be no question that the affiliates are irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CORP is for determining notability of the article topic only. WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are what apply to article contents. With only primary and self-published sources, we cannot meet NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential references

From Alexm1313, without the telegraph.co.uk reference already being used: --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Frozen Ark to preserve DNA of world’s most endangered species 27 July 2004. The University of Nottingham. (primary source)
• http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100106/ARTICLE/1061060
• Scientific Meeting - The Frozen Ark Project The Zoological Society of London. (primary source)
• Frozen Ark project launches 27 July 2004. The Natural History Museum. (primary source)
• ‘Frozen Ark’ mission to save rare species runs into stormy waters Mark Henderson. May 20, 2008. The Times.
• The Frozen Ark Biotechnology Online (CSIRO). (primary source)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf5e-Um2Vbk

The elephant in the room

I think that there is a very important point here for everyone to think about carefully.

Two days ago there was a new editor on Wikipedia who was very keen on adding content. We have lost that editor forever and have a stubby article to show for it. My point here is NOT to cast blame, but to suggest that things didn't have to turn out this way. Technically everyone was acting for the best and following guidelines that have served us well. But, if we had been more patient with a newbie then we would most likely have a new editor who was on the road to learning the complex ways of our community and keen to keep contributing. In the long run we may have had a better article and someone who was committed and contributed much more. Alexbateman (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Before responding, how is this discussion related to improving this article? While it might be a useful discussion, does it belong here? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued involvement by the original author is indeed related to improving the article, but I agree, this isn't the right talk page to discuss it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move this thread to a more appropriate place. I am uncertain of where would be best. Thanks. Alexbateman (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)