Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BarkingFish (talk | contribs) at 00:23, 7 August 2010 (→And while we're on the subject of "Nonce": talkback). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

v t e WikiProject: Countering systemic bias Project members create new articles and improve neglected ones.
Review and improve	American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present) Eastern Europe Central Europe Medical assistant Hoda Barakat Women's rights movement in Iran Roch Marc Christian Kaboré Cultural practice Covance History of East Asia White pride Ryke Geerd Hamer Western painting American exceptionalism American (word) BRIC Rwandan genocide History of HIV/AIDS Moon-eyed people Australia national soccer team Leopard Society
Article requests	Marcel Météore Mois Benarroch Gert-Jan Lokhorst
Expand	Oscar Pill Sorbian literature Henrique Abranches Ti-Grace Atkinson List of Islamic educational institutions Muntaqim v. Coombe Turbi massacre National Unity Party Álvaro Mutis African Progress Union Southern Aslian languages Surojana Sethabutra Rachel Foster Avery MediaSmarts
Update	First Ivorian Civil War Cotonou Banjul War in Darfur Stay-at-home dad Ituri conflict
Article Project page All open tasks

"Life value" of "higher" organisms?

I am not fully comfortable with your recent addition to Organism, even less so with the present wording. Where does the POV come from, that "higher" organisms need to have mental complexity? Is not a tree more valuable than algae, even without a state of mind? And, should the "value" part in fact link to Intrinsic value (ethics)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See higher and lower animals. The terms "higher" and "lower" are of course relativistic and can apply to any relation on the spectrum. But trees don't classify other species (like algae) the way humans classify them. So the issue of relativism is constrained by this basic fact that humans actually have language and use it to classify things (colloquially or scientifically), while trees and other "lower" life forms do not. Hope that answers your question. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have linked to this article! Anyway, now I am even less convinced. Your argumentation may be valid in the humanities, but not in a science article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Humanities?" It is valid in linguistics and philosophy too. And because these are not strictly science articles - they in fact are Misplaced Pages articles - all articles come under review from other academic approaches. So the ideas of "higher" and "lower," while not strictly scientific, are nevertheless common colloquial descriptions, and thus are relevant in any article which discuss the terms and how people conceptualize them. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "higher" and "lower" has been superseded by "complex" and "simple". Please update your paradigm as needed. See also: Evolution of complexity. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Some questions come to mind: Where has this "superceding" taken place? Are "complex" and "simple" well-defined? Are they well understood as being colloquially subjective and relativistically functional like "higher and lower" are? Is a cow a "simple" organism, within this the complex-simple spectrum, or is it necessarily "complex," and thus by politicized extrapolation, a being, with implied idiosyncratic equivalences to human beings? Strangely enough the relativistic terms "higher and lower" require context to be defined and as such are perfectly NPOV. "Complex and simple" may have wonderfully universal designations, but would not be used by some people in ways which are NPOV. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you try to define what a "higher" and "lower" organism entails, you'll find that the definition falls apart before you've completed your sentence. Another problem is that such terms imply or support a teleological argument of some kind. Although I'm not certain on this, this wording appears to come from the old concept of the great chain of being, and unfortunately found its way into early theories of biological development in the 18th century. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but I think you could talk about the history of the terms in the appropriate article with good sources.Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Truthfulness, higher and lower are not well definable - they are simply relativistic and work at any point on the spectrum. For example you could say "relative to humans, bovines are lower organisms," but you could also say "algae are lower organisms relative to mammals such as bovines and humans." You could use "complex and simple" in the same way, but to me there appears to be some kind of anti-teleological argument embedded in them. "Higher and lower" are not too much different from "complex and simple" in that they do not come from any "theory" except to say that when a person looks at a chimp, they realize that the chimp is missing a few things that the human being has. That's just a fact, and remains such regardless of any well-crafted anti-teleological counterarguments.

Perhaps what you are really arguing is that "higher and lower" are somewhat qualitative terms, and that science should not make qualitative distinctions, only quantitative ones. This is a valid argument, but only if science POV does not trump NPOV. We are all humans who read this encyclopedia, and humans do sometimes need qualitative distinctions in their lexicon.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I've placed a merger tag on Higher and lower organisms, requesting that it be merged into Great chain of being. Unless you have references that talk about the topic in a contemporary manner, I don't see why we need to have a separate article. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming that "higher and lower" are not just colloquial, but arguments for the reality of Intelligent Design? Interesting. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, (other sources have gone into this) the terms found their way into science papers and books, but as is the case with many words, they can lose their meaning over time. I think you'll find that aside from a few older scientists still publishing, the terms are rarely used. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they aren't, as you claim, teleological. They are colloquial. For example 'all people on Earth eat lower, more simple, life forms.' Again you should respond more clearly to what I've stated - particularly the qualitative / quantitative distinction. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, let's get down to brass tacks. Are you going to add citations to your essay? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When? Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I can. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

"Minor" edits

Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —David Levy 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. My edits are marked minor by default and sometimes I forget to uncheck certain edits. Which article or articles brought this to your attention? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw your revision to Misplaced Pages:Hatnote on my watchlist. I then noticed that almost all of your edits (including substantial ones) are labeled "minor." I recommend that you change your default setting, as the reverse error (minor edits not so labeled) would be preferable. —David Levy 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to overstate the importance of my edits. Regarding them all as "minor" seems like a good way to do that. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In this context, the term "minor" has a specific meaning unrelated to importance. Your intent might be to be modest, but you actually are misleadingly labeling substantial edits in a manner indicating that they require no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

Speaking of a dispute, I see that you've continued leaving the "minor" checkbox ticked even when actively taking part in one. This is especially unacceptable, as is failing to include a meaningful edit summary. You've effectively deemed Bkonrad a vandal. —David Levy 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear on how whether my own changes are listed as "minor" or else (ostensibly) "major" I have somehow labelled someone, particularly a longtime editor like Bkonrad, a "vandal." If there is some process by which minor edits have such major influence over the status of a particular editor, I would assert that "assumption" has some undue role in that process. I will consider listing my edits as major by default. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacks of vandalism (and well-meaning but inappropriate test edits) are labeled "minor" and contain no rationale. This is because vandalism is considered non-meaningful (so its removal requires no review or explanation).

Conversely, the reversion of a good-faith edit as part of a content dispute is never minor. An edit for which a dispute is even a foreseeable possibility is not minor.

In labeling your reversion of Bkonrad's edit "minor" and omitting a rationale, you treated it exactly as we do vandalism. You conveyed (though I'm sure that this wasn't your intention) that Bkonrad's edit was patently inappropriate to the extent that there was no point in explaining your reversion or in other users bothering to examine it.

Yes, please consider disabling the "minor" label by default. Its absence does not indicate that an edit is of particular importance. Rather, its presence indicates that an edit is so trivial that it can be ignored without consequence. —David Levy 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize that such a precise system for noting vandals would use the virtually arbitrary "minor"/"major" (implied) indicator as its basis. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of not having a precise system for noting vandals (because their edits aren't worth noting), and instead lumping the reversion of vandalism together with other inconsequential revisions.

Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is. —David Levy 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is." - Applying this principle to the recent case, my notation of "minor" was accurate: Bkonrad deleted a passage I had reinserted from my initial draft version of that page (2005). Its merits were few. His edit was deletionistic and accompanied only by a terse comment calling my writing "grumbling." The difference between his delete and vandalism is too slight to relegate judgment to a simple binary choice between "minor" and "major" (implied). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The above assessment troubles me most of all. I feel a bit awkward saying this to such an experienced editor (let alone a former administrator), but I suggest that you read or re-read WP:OWN. —David Levy 02:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Steve! :)

I noticed that you made some edits to the Amen article, and I think there is a need for some furher changes. The line "There is no academic support for either of these views." should change to read "There is little academic support for either of these views." Since the first statement is not technically correct, as there are some (allthough very little) support for the idea that the word Amen came from the Epyptian god Ammon/ Amun/ Amen. So just as you noted that "there are unsubstantiated claims by some Hindu writers that "Amen" and "Amin" (Islam), came from the word "aum."", the entry about Amen vs. Amun should also be modidied. Jove 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnoakgrove (talk • contribs)

3O

Hey. I just saw your request for a third opinion. I've removed it because I want to try to help, but also because there are more than 4 editors involved in this, so it doesn't really qualify for a 3O. I'm trying to understand what's going on, but it's just spread out all over the place, so it's hard to follow. Is this editor being particularly tendentious? If there's a consensus for one particular view and he's the only one speaking out against it, then he might be. And if you feel like you're being stalked, well, that's an issue too. You might want to bring this up over at WP:ANI or something, but I would be careful, as it could end up backfiring on you. More specifically: on Punishment, for example, it seems that Modocc was unhappy with your edits, yet you just reverted rather than start a thread on the talk page and discuss your edits. And over on Time in physics, it seems that Steve Quinn didn't like your changes to the lede. My recommendation to you is this: take a step back, cool off, and think about your edits. Is it possible that you're being tendentious, not JimWae? You could choose to escalate these issues, but I would take a good long think about them before you do that. — HelloAnnyong 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence article

Hi

What's your rationale for moving the Intelligence article to Active intelligence? It's not a term used in the profession, and the move doesn't appear to have been discussed.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection the whole article needs a fair amount of work, it confuses disciplines, approaches and methodology. Do you have a reference for the use of Active, it's not a term I've ever seen in use and at first glance seems pretty meaningless as intelligence assessment is a pretty wide ranging activity.

ALR (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing talk page message from another editor or sockpuppet

Hi Stevertigo, can you please explain this edit where you changed the signature of Cymble (talk · contribs) by yours? Are you and Cymble the same person? If yes, please be aware of our policy concerning wp:sockpuppetry, stating in short: "The general rule is one editor, one account". Otherwise, please undo that edit per wp:TALKO. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't use socks in the sense that you should be concerned with. See WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(I moved your reply from my talk page to here in order to keep the conversation together. I have your talk page on my watchlist, so you can reply here.)

Thanks, that explains the edit, but I wonder which of the listed reasons (in WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses) you have for using two usernames, as I don't see any of the entries that could be applicable here. Also, have you complied with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonce essay tag in articles

Please do not add tags pointing to your essay WP:NONCE into articles as you did here. Doing so amounts to inserting a personal opinion about the article into the article itself instead of on the article's talk page. I have removed it. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of "Nonce"

I have left a comment at the talk page for this article, asking for consideration to rename the article and the redirect, and now I look at it, the tag as well. I don't know if you are aware, but the word "Nonce" is used in British English as slang (mainly in jails, but also on the street) to refer to a Child Molester or a Pedophile. So having a redirect from WP:NONCE, a tag marked {{nonce}} and a page for Nonce introductions doesn't seem like too hot an idea. What say you? :) BarkingFish | 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BarkingFish | 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)