Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ultramarine

message: From my vantagepoint, Ultramarine's response is instructive.  His announced ethic of relying on peer-reviewed studies is commendable, although of much less value than he seems to think.  But note that he presumes that any criticism of the studies he cites comes from those who dislike the conclusions -- this is a breach of decorum, a misunderstanding of academics and appears to jaundice his view of those contrary views he has read.
I have observed at least four unfortunate consequences of this.
# Because Ultramarine is adamant about supporting the view with which he agrees, his fellow-editors are almost forced to become advocates for the opposite POV.
# Because Ultramarine insists, somewhat illogically, that only a peer-reviewed article can be used to critique a peer-reviewed article, he shoves aside valid criticisms of his pet theory.
# Because Ultramarine insists that every criticism be responded to in detail, the articles tend towards logorrhea, which injures Wikipedia.
# When another editor comes up with an obvious (but unsourced or poorly-sourced) criticism of his pet theory, a careful editor would help hunt down a better source, simply because it makes a better article.  Instead, Ultramarine exacerbates disagreement by accusing his fellow-editors of ignorance, or laziness.
This is truly regrettable, because a more collegial Ultramarine who sought actively to promote NPOV would (crystal ball warning: will?) be, I believe, a true asset to Wikipedia, and actually do a better job of presenting those opinions with which he agrees.
Robert A West 18:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make many claims without sources. As noted, I haved added many opposing views to Capitalism, although I support it. The same can be said for other articles. If this goes to arbitration, I will add them in more detail. (I am uncertain at the moment if I want arbitration, but that may be necessary in order to stop the deperate deletions on Criticisms of communism) Ultramarine 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your demand that comments on the talk page be sourced is actually a good example of your non-collegial conduct.  The use of talk as a way to raise issues where one does not have the source to hand is very common, and strikes me as useful.  I hoped to get you to see that there are numerous problems and issues with DPT research, which would help you write a better article.  Robert A West 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view and Ultramarine's response 

message: Politically charged DOS reports, the Index of Economic Freedom, and Rummel are not scientific sources.
Economics is infinitely more subjective than physics or mathematics, and work in that field can not be definitively asserted as factual because there are other factors (i.e. political motives) that color the "research". The Heritage Foundation, a private institution, can rank countries lower in the list (than a so-called "objective" analysis would show) for the sole purpose of compelling them to further deregulate their economies. These are issues that are potentially up for debate. In contrast, the fact that the Earth is round is not negotiable, and anyone, even those outside a private think tank, can determine this.
My point is, economics is not physics. In physics (hard science), there are universal laws. In economics (political science), there are competing theories (any of which could be valid or successful, largely depending on global political and social structures and divisions) and hidden motives. Using the word "science" and citing a controversial think tank as if it possessed truth, as if capitalist economic functions are as non-negotiable as the laws of nature, is misleading and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.
This is simply something to think about. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not calling names. I'm not saying capitalism is bad. I'm not going to endorse any side in this dispute, and will not involve myself in the discussion regarding "criticisms of socialism/communism". I just don't have time to familiarize myself with the context of all disputes involving this user's conduct. —Seselwa 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above summary, and think that this goes far to explain how Ultramarine's style manages to irritate even those who 90% agree with him. Robert A West 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I would add that reading Peer review#Different styles of review, especially the first four paragraphs of (this text, confirms that peer review often warrants no more than freedom from obvious stupidity and blunder, even in the hard sciences. Septentrionalis 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Science"