English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paul Bedson/Sandbox

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Paul Bedson/Sandbox

User:Paul Bedson/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like other comments on this. I don't believe that this is an appropriate use of userspace - it starts "The Aaiha Hypothesis is an internet meme started by Paul Bedson on a Wikipedia sandbox page on 2nd July 2011." Wikipedia isn't a place to store something like this. Paul does some good work but some of his work is inappropriate (he needs to avoid using Wikipedia to put forward new ideas), and he can easily store this on his own computer or elsewhere. I mentioned this to him a few days ago but would like other opinions. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am equally unsure about this use of userspace and am happy to remove it if I am in breach of any policy or rules here. I had thought your tag qualified it as a non-article and I self-tagged it with other warnings appropriately. I am using it to put together sources and ideas for updates and new pages that are based on the information and sources I am compiling there. Some of the stuff, like the first wild emmer being found near Aaiha in Rashaya in the 1800s hasn't even found it's place on WP yet as I haven't quite found where to use it appropriately. This isn't a new idea, it's probably something that should be reported on WP somewhere. It's also partly there so that other editors will better understand my perspective in order to help edit appropriately. I really am not trying to put any new ideas on WP proper, just shine a big light with the existing information on a certain area of geography, mythology and archaeology at a certain time in history with my sandbox trying to become a tool to help me organize and do that better. I look forward to other editor's opinions on this. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If it intended for mainspace, the article, especially the lede, needs to make no mention of wikipedia. (commentary on the project in project space of userspace would be different)
1. It fails founding principle "6. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.".
2. A different approach to the same thing is that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source".
3. A simple version of WP:N is that "we cover what others have already covered". Wikipedia is not others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have changed the lede under consideration of your advice. If I haven't considered it enough, please let me know. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • keep It is just a sandbox for experiments and Paul Benson seems to be responsive to concerns. It it moves to article space it can be deleted as non encyclopedic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep As proper use of a sandbox for a work-in-progress. It is not (yet) a Wikipedia article and editor is responsive to concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As much as this looks like a very well-researched piece, I don't think you can get a much clearer example of origina research/synthesis: the old lead sentence made this explicit. This is a large amount of evidence collected together to support what is essentially an original idea (inspired by Edward Robinson as it may be) under an uncommon name. The abundant secondary sourcing does not actually refer to the central subject of the article, as that subject is the invention (or reinvention) of the author, and as such this would not survive an AfD. I am therefore cautious about encouraging its development in userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. The earlier lede was obviously unsuitable for mainspace. The current lede is less obviously unsuitable. But it is not the lede, which is good for what it is, it is the subject. If it were to be suitable material, the first sentence would be referenced by at least one reliable, independent secondary source that discusses directly the "Aaiha hypothesis". I guess that reference 1 does not quite achieve this test. Possibly, reference 4 alone does, but this would mean that the entire article should reflect that one reference, that The Aaiha Hypothesis is a mishmash of erroneous statements. I deduce that the author does not want to write an article that reads so, and so his COI is so strong that he should not touch the subject. That is what I surmise.

The real problem lies behind the third sentence: "The hypothesis is in the process of being re-designed ...". A good encyclopedia takes a timeless, historical perspective of already established information. It should not attempt to provide a running commentary on active research. A dated, independent review of research is a great source for an article, but is not a suitable article. Rewriting the lede can not solve the problem here; it is fundamental to the subject.

The Aaiha Hypothesis essay is very interesting, well-written, and comprehensive in its exploration of known information on the likelihood of great archeological potential at Aaiha. I personally would be inclined to support funding for continued research. It is well grounded, highly significant research. But for Wikipedia, it is original research, and must be excluded along the lines of the original motivations of the policy WP:NOR. If we were to allow this scholarly, high quality material, it would be interesting to readers, but it would be too hard to draw the line on less scholarly, lower quality works. Such discrimination need a professional, dedicated, expert editorial board, and is not what we do.

The author should be referred to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and asked to move the material offsite. It could well publish in a journal. It is not an appropriate use of userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Internal copyright concerns are easy to fix and so do not mandate deletion. WP:NOTSOAPBOX has a negative connotation not applicable in this case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTSOAPBOX is applicable. From the userspace draft:

    Bedson hopes his hypothesis will help stop scientists complaining about their lack of data and focus them to look at this region where political instability has prevented virtually any substantial investigation over the last century. Full photographic (and unreleased video) records [1] are in an almost indecipherable mess and still subject to copyright problems after I have been unsuccessful in securing their release into the public domain.

    Cunard (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I stand corrected. Presentation of the author's hopes crosses the soapbox line. I must have skimmed that bit too fast. The scientist in me chokes on the words suggesting that concerns about lack of data ought be reduced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's not an article, it's a user sandbox being actively edited by someone listening to others and being open to corrections and concerns toward improvement. As it is properly tagged as a Userspace draft, with the caveat "It is an individual user's work in progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable", we can accept the "given" that it is incomplete and/or unreliable. So the question devolves to "How long is any user allowed to work on his draft out of mainspace?" and the closely related "How long is any user allowed to listen and act upon input from others in improving his draft so that it might serve the project?" I agree that the above mentioned concerns toward style, tone and sourcing would be a perfect call for deletion were this in article space, but as Wikipedia specifically encourages editors, both new and old, to use userspace sandboxes for their test edits and article construction, what we have herein is a discussion of the flaws being found in his userspace draft, coupled with an editor quite willing to listen and improve his draft to meet those concerns. User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. Again, the content is not suitable for mainspace at this time and there is no assertion that it is, but it is not IN mainspace, and we have an editor responsive to concerns. Better we continue to advise on concerns than inadvertantly chase him off the project. Had the author be adament that the draft could not be changed or improved, and insisted it not be altered in any way, and if it were not being actively edited to adress concerns, then we'd have a major issue. We do not expect nor demand that drafts be mainspace ready until they are IN mainspace. So again, the questions devolve to "How long is any user allowed to work a draft out of mainspace?" and "How long is any editor allowed to listen and act upon input from others in improving his draft so that it might serve the project as an article?" It must be granted that if removed from Wikipedia and worked on elsewhere, it would far more difficult (if not impossible) for other editors to assist in or offer advice for its improvement, so why require an admitted draft to be immediately perfect, or declare that it could never be? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Much of what you say I agree with. "Suitable now for mainspace" is not a userspace requirement. However, I don't think the material now known can ever be improved to be made suitable. It requires new sources, that discuss the hypothesis directly, to arise. The ideal source would be Paul's essay published in a reliable source. Unfortunately, Paul is playing the role of researcher (primary/secondary source creator), not encylopedia writer (tertiary source creator). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If topic expert Paul Bedson is unable to find and offer the sources that support his userspace essay draft (and again, there is no mandate that this be done within the next few hours), then a call for deletion or a a move off the project could perhaps be more reasonable. But I have a difficult time seeing a page being actively edited, being so edited out of respect for and to address the concerns of others, as being a violation of WP:NOT's WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:NOTSOAPBOX. If it were, the author would intransigent... and that is obviously not the case. Further, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and the author's courteous willingness to work with others in addressing real or perceived concerns exemplifies what WP:COMMUNITY is all about. It is in complience with the intent of The Five Pillars and Jimbo's own "Statement of principles". I believe a removal here would set a worrisome precedent that will be followed by others in determining just how long any user might be allowed to work on a draft out of mainspace, and act to remove works-in-progress despite an editor listening to and acting collaboratively with others in improving his draft so that it might serve the project as an article. This precedent would then be used to declare that ANY userspace draft has finite and limited lifespan and that it can be then be deleted by anyone, being actively edited or not, and despite the collaborative efforts or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Your argument about a "worrisome precedent that will be followed by others in determining just how long any user might be allowed to work on a draft out of mainspace ..." is a slippery slope. Other cases will be judged on their merits.

    There is no reason for Wikipedia to host content that violates Wikipedia:No original research, particularly Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. The author's invention or reinvention of the Aaiha hypothesis ("The hypothesis is in the process of being re-designed by Paul Bedson to make various reliable geographical, archaeological and mythological suggestions ...") will not become a Wikipedia article until it has received secondary coverage. Per Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, the author is encouraged to host this content elsewhere and per WP:NOTWEBHOST discouraged not to host it on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • We've all seen discussions where someone cites as a precedent, something that occured at am earlier time. Yes, it is a slipery slope. But one that should be considered very carefully. I do not see it as his looking to make a personal webpage or blog or a place to post his résumé, nor as a page promoting social networking or amusement, as such would be disallowed under WP:NOTWEBHOST. And had his work-in-progress sat unedited for a great while or had the author been unwilling to discuss changes or improvements, I would have agreed that NOTWEBHOST would apply. But what I do see from the page and his actions is his collaboratively trying to create information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Providing a foundation for effective collaboration is specifically encourged by NOTWEBHOST, and not the opposite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a web host for users to promote their hypotheses. That the creator has written "Bedson hopes his hypothesis will help stop scientists complaining about their lack of data and focus them to look at this region where political instability has prevented virtually any substantial investigation over the last century" indicates that he is not sufficiently neutral to write an article about this topic.

    If the creator removes any mention of himself (since he has not provided any secondary coverage that discusses himself and his hypothesis), and if he prunes the page of all original research and synthesis violating material, I have no objection to retaining the userspace draft. The GFDL violations also need to be rectified. Cunard (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • A reasonable compromise that can be dealt with through collaborative editing. And, as Bedson is part of these discussions, I have the sense from his responses that he will be ammenable to removing any GFDL violations and self-references from the draft. He is seeking input, and we are giving it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Michael, it's not a need for more sources to support what is there. The problem is that what is there is essentially original research.
  • No, it is not flagrant abuse. Something appropriate could be made from it. There is no need for hasty deletion. However, it doesn't look like it is going in the right direction.
  • Because Paul is responsive, and responsible, we can and should trust him to do the right thing, in his own good time, according to his own judgment, while considering advice offered from here or elsewhere. Small groups of editors at MfD should not be too quick to delete userspace pages of responsible Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My thought as well. Call me crazy, but I would think it better to hope for a little AGF in another's efforts to improve the project, and at the same time try not to judge userspace works-in-progress by the stricter guidelines intended for mainspace articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a case of not assuming good faith. The user has already stated exactly what the page is for, and indeed voiced concerns that it's not really appropriate for userspace. It turns out that this is correct. I'm sure there are plenty of wikis which do accept research work like this, so it's not like the user is going to be unable to carry on his work if this page is deleted. However, by its very nature it cannot be used to benefit our encyclopedia (it is original research in its truest sense), and so it is not an appropriate use of userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
My thought is that no non-wiki'd draft page could "benefit" the encyclopedia until such time as it is improved and sourced per MOS to the point (if possible) where it is suitable for a move to mainspace. And though the author had stated his original reasons for creating it, he appears quite ammenable to modifying its content so that it would fall within guideline for such userspace drafts. This leaves us a conundrum, and two issues to consider:
A few editors in this discussion are declaring in the best of good faith that Paul Bedson's userspace draft could never be improved and that its perceived tone and sense of WP:OR could never be cleaned up through regular editing.
Conversely, we have the author himself openly and willingly accepting input and advice from other editors in attempting to bring the userspace draft into line with existing guideline.
If Paul Bedson were intransigent and refused to address the perceived issues seen in his userspace draft, I could understand the need to delete something would then never be suitable, as we'd see that an intransigent wish to host an essay on Wikipedia would be violating NOTWEBHOST. But as the author is listening and is willing to correct issues, I cannot understand an unwilingness to let the issues be corrected. So with respects Chris, and while yes any Wikipedia editor could decide not to contibute here and take his or her work to some other web space, my unanswered question remains: "How long is any editor permitted to listen to and act upon input from others in attempts to improve a userspace draft so that it might serve the project as an article?"
I see the guidelines for userspace drafts set to not be as limiting of an editor's work-in-progress as are the guidelines for mainspace articles. If Thomas Edison were to write an userspace draft article on his work on the electric light, editors could require him to remove it per COI and OR even though the draft was being worked on in a non-wiki'd userspace. And Edison's work would not be allowed to return until someone else, somewhere else wrote about his work. So yes, Bedson can take his work elsewhere, and perhaps it is best he do so, in order to avoid shaking the cobwebs. But does demanding such move actually improve the project? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Fantastically argued Schmidt. You have convinced me at least to vote to keep largely over concerns about the precedent that could be set and you so well highlight. I also maintain that elements of the article, including the recent expansions of the emmer section from the Feldman source are suitable for Wikipedia and are being stored there with good intention as I fill in further holes with new articles on major sites such as Cafer Hoyuk, etc. I have made several amendments as the result of this discussion and cleaned up the aim of the hypothesis sentence that has been frequently quoted here. I will also virtually eliminate my own name from the article, perhaps save mention of my involvement in the 2009 survey. I will do some research on GFDL violations and try to address issues here too. I must admit that I am not particularly well versed with these. Any other advice, problems or concerns would be gratefully received. Cheers! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    P.S. I am going on vacation to Kent tomorrow, will have my PlayBook with me, but please excuse me if I am a bit delayed in replying or responding to concerns while taking a Summer holiday. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    These discussions usually run about 5 to 7 days. Perhaps you might try to address as many of the above concerns as possible before leaving. In any case, have a good time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I will leave the question whether this essay represents an invalid use of userspace to others. However, as someone who is knowledgeable in Near Eastern archaeology (and therefore the subject at hand), I would like to make sure that everyone here understands that the "Aaiha hypothesis" is not only wp:or but also extremely wp:fringe. As such it will probably never be suitable for mainspace. Paul has written a lot of quite good articles on Near Eastern archaeology (although his bias is often quite visible but has so far only resulted in relatively minor mistakes) but this Aaiha hypothesis is not among them. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As Paul is overall a most welcome and valuable Wikipedian, I think we should allow extra leeway for this, on condition that it is clearly declared upfront that the material is OR, and is non-mainstream (fringe is an unkind word). I like to think that there is useful material contained in it, although as a whole it is not suitable for mainspace. I think Paul should seek to proudly publish his work elsewhere, and not try to contort his work to make it fit where it doesn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and encouragement in particular SmokeyJoe. I have tried to address as many concerns as I can for now and there is lots more to do. You have given me some valuable ideas, formatting advice and encouragement. I haven't written a thesis since my university days fifteen years ago and the userspace has served as a format I am familiar with to draw on my experience writing articles and references to put together this piece for presentation or publication elsewhere. I do hope some parts of it will end up back on Wikipedia, admittedly, probably not in anything like the current format as Zoeperkoe suggests. It has additional aim to approach people with sympathy to support further funding of research or investigation in this area and still has lots of work to do, and the arguments, connections and elements of the historical model are not clear in several areas, plus it is not, unfortunately, illustrated effectively with photographs or video of the location. Thank you everyone though for your time, comments and kind words on this, it has given me loads to go away and think about. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Paul_Bedson/Sandbox&oldid=4095029"