Talk:Precautionary principle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Whitepapers not reliable sources?

I think there is some confusion here. This whitepaper is not a scientific research paper noting empirical results from a series of experiments - this I would think would need to be peer reviewed prior to publishing. What we should be discussing is about a "whitepaper" which by virtue of it being available publicly by a reliable source sufficient as a source for new ideas. I've seen whitepapers on Wikipedia accepted writ-large that are published by large consultancies - accepted without peer review or some equivalent. I imagine they are acceptable given the re-known/respectability of the consultancy (e.g., Accenture, Deloitte, etc). So why then isn't a whitepaper from a re-known author, mathematician, MIT professor and politician published under the auspices of NYU not considered reliable?

Vergil Den 16:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

When it comes to scientific fact of implementation of theory, we generally require peer-review to establish the idea has some WP:WEIGHT in the scientific community. The source is still written to portray thinking about a scientific topic, and there are only select instances where a self-published source is acceptable or has sufficient weight for inclusion. This isn't one of those cases. WP:FRINGE also has some application here certain applications of the precautionary principle conflict with the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, and we can't give those ideas undue prominence per that guideline and WP:NPOV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a paper on natural science nor is it a paper on medicine, rather it is a risk management paper on the precautionary principle applicable to a myriad of domains and therefore not subject to an assessment by the scientific community by default or as a requirement. Most of the paper addresses core concepts logically and mathematically and only portion of the paper address its application, in this case, GMOs and only "an example" of its application which by the way isn't fundamentally a new thing. By your criteria any statute, regulation, or legal opinion that cites the precautionary principle against any scientific concept must be excluded, which by any reasonable measure, appears to be an attempt to censor.

Vergil Den 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

First, please remember to WP:THREAD your posts and sign them by using four tildes at the end of your post. Risk management is a scientific discipline, especially in the field of natural sciences as applies here. Also please refrain from edit warring the content back in. You need WP:CONSENSUS here to add content back in at this point as I've discussed on your talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus rule doesn't apply to attempts to censor valid content. You have failed to provide a valid reason the content I posted is inappropriate for the article. Feel free to edit the content to address your concerns.

Vergil Den 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

It looks like you're overall new to the edit process at Wikipedia, but consensus is one of our core policies. When your edit has been rejected, you need to gain consensus for it on the talk page in order to re-add it again. You can't just keep edit warring it back in as you've done. Another core policy is WP:RS or using reliable sources. In this case, something that is self-published is not considered reliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vergilden's edit. Therefore, we presently have a 2/3 consensus for the edit. However, @Vergulden:: please read the warning directly above mine and those placed by the same user on your talk page. Please also read this: WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by WP:VOTE. As of right now, we have a policy based argument from removal that hasn't and really cannot be dispelled for this particular type of source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

1. PP is not a scientific principle, it is a risk management principle and therefore content related to it does not need to be peer reviewed - it simply needs to be published with the consent of the authors.

2. PP is applicable to a number of different domains such as finance, tech, natural science, medicine, etc. If it was posted in the domain specific article, I could see why some might object. However, it is being posted under the PP topic, not the domain specific areas.

3. Nassim Taleb is one of the most authoritative source (some would argue, the authoritative source) on risk management which is the fundamental point of the PP. His co-authors are highly respected in their field and are publishing under the auspices of NYU.

4. Consensus has been reached that the content should stay

You keep moving the goal posts which indicates to me that you are trying to censor the content or to be a jobsworth.

Vergil Den 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

I've been mentioning the same issue, so please refrain from personal attacks. Risk assessment is an established field in biological sciences ranging from diseases, invasive species, and ecological effects. It is a science. At Wikipedia we use reliable sources, and in scientific topics being published by the consent of the author is not a high enough bar by our standards. As also mentioned before, this insertion is a WP:COATRACK in nature. You can't say it's not about science yet insert content about GMOs relating to their scientific risk assessment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

White papers are only reliable sources for the opinions of the authors. If they are used, the text must make it clear that the paper is only representing the opinion of the authors. jps (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Many domains have an established risk assessment disciplines - simply because the paper uses various examples where the example has an established risk assessment discipline, such as GMOs, does not infer that the paper must be held to the standard of a scientific topic.

2. Per Wikipedia policy, the criteria for reliable source: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The paper is authored by Nassim Taleb (established expert) among other experts and published under the auspices of NYU (reliable third-party publications).

Vergil Den 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

"Sometimes" is the operative word in 2. This is a case where "sometimes" means, "not this time". jps (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from being disrespectful to me. "Sometimes" in this case means "when the conditions are met" - so it must be demonstrated that:

1) Taleb is NOT an established expert AND

2) His work HAS NOT BEEN been published by a reliable third-party publication.

Vergil Den 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Nope. That's not the criteria. The criteria is that when there is a controversial statement that cannot be sourced to peer-reviewed sources, that statement cannot be considered a fact as opposed to an opinion in terms of how it is described in Wikipedia's voice. That's what we have here. The only way this white paper can be used as a source is if it is sourcing Taleb's opinion. And it needs to be established that Taleb's opinion as stated in the white paper is relevant to the topic at hand. You have not been able to rise to these occasions. jps (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I take it that you concede that Taleb is an expert and has published in reliable 3rd party sources given that you haven't been able to demonstrate otherwise.

Now to your latest point: what is controversial from the paper that isn't already controversial to things present in the precautionary principle article in part or writ large? In other words, what is newly controversial that the paper brings? You and kingoffaces (nor anyone else to my knowledge) have established this yet.

Vergil Den 22:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

I don't see reliable sources referencing this white paper. Therefore, I have removed it. jps (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgy (jp), from continuing to undo my submission. Wikipedia policy allows content to remain posted while it is being debated on the talk page as long as the content is not toxic (e.g., vandalism)

So far I have responded and refuted (or at minumum debaters have failed to present a valid counter-argument) to all the different policy arguments that have been presented against my submission.

1. The submission is NOT scientific content and is a whitepaper (you have concurred by virtue of switching argument and referring to it as a whitepaper) and therefore NOT subject to peer review for reasons of it being scientific content

2. Taleb is an expert and has published in reliable 3rd party sources (this hasn't been refuted). Therefore the content can be submitted as a reliable source per wikipedia policy.

3. The content is not controversial as submitted on the PP page given that there is nothing newly controversial that the paper brings to the PP page (this hasn't been refuted). Therefore, the paper is not subject to the policy requirement you previously stated.

Again, please refrain from an edit war and as per policy, debate on the talk page. Failure to do so will be a policy violation and I will need to escalate to an admin on the grounds of a policy violation and attempts to censor.

13:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Your submission violated WP:V and WP:RS, and your defense is anemic and based on a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. I have therefore re-removed it until you can point to any published, peer-reviewed sources which indicate it should be included here. jps (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your tone and curt response indicates that you are attacking me. Please refrain from this type of debating as it violates Wikipedia policy. Saying my "defense is anemic" is not a valid counter argument. Simply throwing out references is not a valid either as you fail to demonstrate "How" the submission violates these policy references.

Also, this is your final warning with regards to reverting my submission. The next time you do this, I will need escalate to an admin.

Vergil Den 14:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

White papers are not peer reviewed by definition. Therefore, there hasn't been proper vetting of the source. It needs to be removed until it has been properly reviewed by the appropriate peers who can make the determination whether this is a relevant inclusion of this point. Unless you are willing to make the claim that your hero is the prime owner of this "principle", we cannot just go by his say-so as to what is or is not part of the precautionary principle. jps (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You both need to knock off the edit warring. jps you have 3 reverts and V you have 2. The content you're warring about is subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR. Next revert, you both get taken to AE. Minor4th 16:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware the PP article was covered under the restriction regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals b/c of its seemingly tertiary relationship to such things (primary risk management, secondary legal). Thanks for clarifying.

Vergil Den 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

This is an obvious ruse. You have tweeted about the author you are trying to include here as well as his opinions on GMOs and you received notice that any edit related to this subject is covered under sanctions. Your plea of ignorance is not convincing. jps (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Another red-herring - you fail to address the issue which is the content itself - please provide the "how" the policy references you cite prohibit the inclusion of the content on the page.

The PP is a risk management principle and is applicable to a number of different domains. It is a very wide net that is being cast for it to be even covered under this sanction.

Vergil Den 18:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

WP:RS and WP:V both insist that we need proper editorial review before including a source. You have not demonstrated that this white paper has received proper editorial review and we have shown that, as a white paper, it has not been reviewed. jps (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to add much for a little while, but I'm just posting to reiterate that reliability has always been the core issue here related to scientific content so as no to give creedence to the improper "moving goalpost" claim. There's that an the WP:COATRACK issue that comes from inserting a controversial statement about GMOs in an article not about GMOs from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. That is why there hasn't been consensus to include the content yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I might be able to see my way to a claim that the "precautionary principle" as imagined by Nassim Taleb might be the only way this idea currently survives. If it doesn't have applicability beyond this philosopher's approach, then, sure, the white paper is appropriate. If that's the case, then, we need to rewrite the article to make it clear that this is only about Nassim Taleb's idea as to what the precautionary principle is and it is not, for example, any greater point about standard operating proceudres withins the broader subject of risk management. jps (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I really want to work to gain agreement here but it's going to take cooperation on both sides.

First, let me restate my position. I've refuted each of the policies that have been asserted against my submission. However, with all of the back and forth, my arguments may not have been clear to you. What I will do is for each one of the approx. 10 policies, I will explain why the policy rule doesn't apply to my submission. If you disagree, please be specific as to why you disagree and "how" the rule is applicable. For example, if you truly believe the paper is scientific, I need to know why you think it qualifies as scientific (i.e., explain what in the content of the paper is scientific). This process will identify where we disagree and why. Then we can focus on resolving those differences.

Second, there seems to be some sensitivity around GMOs on this page. What I will do is edit the text of my submission (not the content of paper itself) to remove the text GMOs because the paper is more broadly applicable and only uses GMOs as an example. Before I edit the Wikipedia PP article itself, I will put my edits in this post for you to review.

Vergil Den 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

@Kingofaces43: and @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: - Per my previous post, the following is a rule by rule breakdown and the reason my submission is not in violation of the respective rule. Again, if you disagree, please be specific as to why you disagree and "how" the rule is applicable.

WP:V: “means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source” i.e., “Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although Wikipedia discourages the use of self-published sources, there are conditions when it’s allowable, specifically: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

a. Nassim Taleb, one of the authors, is an established expert on risk management (the PP is a precautionary approach to risk management) and he has been published extensively by reliable third-party publications.

b. Whereas (a), the links I provided in the article are active links, one to arxiv and the other to one of the author’s website.

WP:RS: “Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by a established author, likely lack the fact checking that publishers provide; avoid using them to source extraordinary claims” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

c. Whereas (a) and (b), the claims in the paper are not extraordinary and are consistent with the fundaments of the precautionary principle itself “that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.”

WP:WEIGHT: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

d. Whereas (c), my submission is just one of a number of sources cited on the page and to give you a sense of ratio of part to whole, my submission is one paragraph, three sentences or ninety-nine words. The article is made up of over forty paragraphs, over two hundred sentences or over four thousand words. The article has over thirty sources cited to my two.

WP:FRINGE: “To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

e. Whereas (d), the contents of the paper narrows the application of the PP to systemic global harm vs non-systemic local harm, rather than its normally understood broader definition (which has been one of its criticism). If the paper had been expanded into areas not previously applied to the PP that perhaps could be considered fringe, but not narrowing its application.

WP:NPOV: “which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

f. Whereas (c), (d), and (e).

WP:CONSENSUS: “Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

g.This is precisely what I’ve been trying to achieve on this talk page (namely addressing the policies raised in objection to my submission) but jps, you reverted while we were still discussing which led to the unfortunate sanctions incident and subsequent warning. Nonetheless, I think my last post about starting anew will address this in the future.

WP:POVPUSH: “POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#POV_pushing

h. If I came across as aggressive, that was not my intention. Starting anew will address this in the future as long as we are both seeking WP:CONSENSUS.

WP:COATRACK: “A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack

i.Only approximately one-sixth of the paper is specific to GMO and Nuclear Energy, to wit: pages 1-8 are used to discuss the point of Global/Systemic vs Local harm, pages 9-12 covers an example of each using GMO and Nuclear as representative cases, pages 12-14 address fallacious arguments against the precautionary principle, page 15 are references, and pages 16-25 are appendices and annex.

WP:COMPETENCE: "Competence is required"

j. I’m not even sure what this one is referring to but will give the benefit of the doubt and will assume it had to do with my lack of experience in the Wiki space rather than something about the content of my submission or against me personally.

Proposed rewrite of text:

“In October 2014, Nassim Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, and Yaneer Bar-Yam published a draft whitepaper of a non-naive version of the Precautionary Principle that prescribes severe limits on things that present public risk of global harm and therefore treated differently from those things that are comparatively limited and better characterized. The paper also debunks a number of criticisms of the precautionary principle characterizing them as fallacious arguments.”

Vergil Den 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you've misunderstood the relevant polices and guidelines cited to you, especially in regards to coatrack. As mentioned before, we typically look for peer-reviewed sources (aside from official government organizations, etc.) to establish what we consider WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the article for scientific sources. This source just isn't appropriate. I suggest refraining from pushing this much to add sources from Taleb as you are a single purpose account in that regard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to understand how this is a scientific source. The PP is not a scientific principle (although it can be applied to areas such as natural sciences) and the contents of the paper do not include empirical scientific research (which is normal and customary to be peer-reviewed); rather the paper is narrative, math and logic.

Vergil Den 03:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

break

The whitepaper is an unreliable source for any assertions we might make. It is also being used for COATRACKing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, your aggressive revert and lack of an explanation is a violation of WP:CIV. Please read the previous thread and explain why the whitepaper reference cited is unreliable. Let me also remined you that there are discretionary sanctions on the article and talk pages and a one revert rule Vergil Den 16:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Please use high-quality, reliable, secondary sources to build our encyclopedia, which needs to be based on accepted knowledge. Such novel "whitepapers", particularly for contentious claims, are of no use to us. And they particularly shouldn't be used to try and crowbar GMO stuff into this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how the paper is novel and not high quality. This seems to be a common practice among editors to simply state something without actually explaining. Please read the previous thread as I explain in detail why this paper is a reliable source e.g., Taleb is one of the most noted experts in the risk management field and therefore his thoughts on the PP (a risk management discipline) are notable. Many of the other authors are well respected and established in their respective domains as well. Vergil Den 16:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

It's novel because it hasn't been assimilated into the secondary literature. To repeat: we must base our articles on accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. The paper is a secondary source for the PP to further support PP as accepted knowledge (i.e., renowned risk manager writing on the PP which is a risk management concept). If I'm not mistaken, a primary source must be assimilated into the secondary literature for it to be accepted knowledge. But are you saying that secondary sources must assimilated into secondary literature, in effect making them primary sources? If so, this seems tautological. Vergil Den 18:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

To help your confusion, WP:PSTS sets it out: a source is secondary in respect to another source, not to a concept - which, if it were so, would mean there were no primary sources, since even they treat concepts. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case the PP concept has been established for a long time, so all sources that establish the PP's notability are secondary no? WP:PSTS indicates this is an acceptable use for a secondary source (namely, to "establish the topic's notability"). Also, you haven't cleared up what you mean by "assimilated into the secondary literature"? Can you point me to the rule where secondary sources need to be referenced by other secondary sources? By the way, are you going to post an Edit War warning on KingofFaces page like you did to me? (Vergil Den 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Again, please sign your posts with four tildes (the ~ symbol) at the end of your post (see WP:SIGN). Your posts won't show up on many watchlists if you continue to not sign posts. At this point, you haven't gained consensus to include the source, so you can't keep edit warring it in (or accusing others for responding to that). Others have already explained above why such a source isn't reliable, mainly because the lack of peer-review with a self-published source doesn't make it of sufficient scientific weight for inclusion here. In a scientific topic like this, sources are needed that show some degree of acceptance in the scientific community as we've been telling you all along. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have been signing them with four tildes (~) for quite some time. It seems to add the sig but then the bot tags it. I'm not sure what the issue is but will use the too bar sig this time. Regarding you claim, the paper is not scientific as I've explained and you haven't been able to articulate why you think it is scientific. It seems to me that you, jps, and Alexbrn have a penchant for just asserting things without really being able to articulate why (I'll refrain from speculating at this point). But I'm going to continue to press this until there is clearly articulated rationale for exclusion other than "its not a valid secondary source" or "its a scientific paper that needs peer review" --Vergil Den 20:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Regarding signature, I removed the space between Vergil and Den and tested on my talk page and it seemed to work (i.e., no edit by the SineBot). VergilDen 20:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

Regarding signature, I "unchecked" the option below the signature. I hope this works. VergilDen (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

it seems to me Vergil, now that you might have learned how to sign, that you also need to stop edit warring your nonsense, or you will find yourself in a little trouble. Read the links you have been supplied with, and the comments from editors trying to help you. you clearly haven't understood what people are telling you. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, threats and belittling might be midly entertaining (which seems to be your game) but they don't change the fact that lobbing rules to prohibit a submission without explanation is poor form and not helpful. Also, why don't you read the previous thread, my case at the arbitration committee page and this entire thread and you'll see I've read them all. 69.120.192.136 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

69, I have no idea who you are. -Roxy the dog™ woof 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There have been several discussions at WP:RSN where consensus has been reached that peer-review is not a criterion for several types of RS.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course:

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

But why are you commenting on the question of this paper's inclusion, when it in no small part addresses matters of human health (& GMOs)? Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the paper contains - I have not read it. I am not arguing for its inclusion or exclusion, I am simply making a very general point about the acceptability of (non)peer-reviewed content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean you didn't even read this thread before commenting! Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This Talk page is about content for the article, not a place for you start up your bullying behaviour - yet again!DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and the point at issue is content which applies the PP to GMO safety is respect of human health, so your intervention appears on the face of it to violate your topic ban on multiple fronts. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I have already indicated, I was making a general, valid point about RS, not specifically about the paper. Please desist with your bullying.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, back to my earlier point which you failed to address. I'll repeat it here for your convenience: "In this case the PP concept has been established for a long time, so all sources that establish the PP's notability are secondary no? WP:PSTS indicates this is an acceptable use for a secondary source (namely, to "establish the topic's notability"). Also, you haven't cleared up what you mean by "assimilated into the secondary literature"? Can you point me to the rule where secondary sources need to be referenced by other secondary sources? By the way, are you going to post an Edit War warning on KingofFaces page like you did to me?" VergilDen (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

For sourcing, I have already pointed to our WP:PAGs: so WP:CIR. For KingofFaces, WP:DNTTR applies. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've refuted (as did Dr. Chrissy) your sourcing argument. Second, not citing KofF is in bad faith as you know that it helps demonstrate bad behavior (particularly maintaining a history of repeat offenders) - not citing KofF per DNTTR is not in the spirit of the intent of the allowance. VergilDen (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that working papers are reliable sources for WP purposes while they are still going through the collaborative and review processes. Minor4th 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th - I'm not sure I fully understand your position. Are you saying that if a non-scientific WP with notable authors (like my submission) were formally published (which doesn't necessarily include peer review b/c it's not scientific but may include the author's pre-self-publish process), it would be sufficient to qualify a WP as a reliable source? VergilDen (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends on where it was published and under what circumstances, but I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I thought the source we were talking about was a working paper that has not been published and is still in the collaboration phase. Am I mistaken? Minor4th 02:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Mgdyason

@Mgdyason: Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are a new editor and are eager to help. Could you slow down with some of your edits like this, please? It would be preferable if you use the {{cn}} template rather than "[citation needed]". Sometimes you are adding "citation needed" when it is not necessary, as the material is already sourced in the article. Please spend some time looking at the reliable sources that are already in the article before tagging them with "citation needed". In this edit you put "citation needed" in a block quote from a source. I am pretty sure we never do that, so you should probably revert those, but if you can find Wikipedia Policy or Guideline that explains it please show me.

I would suggest spending some time reading reviewing some of the materials I posted on your talk page with the Welcome Greeting. But please keep editing. Also, please not that this page is under special "discretionary sanctions" as shown above and when you edit the article or the talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for your hard work cleaning this up! --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Precautionary principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205100244/http://www.municode.com:80/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5 to http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)