Talk:Ariel A. Roth

message: The article takes entire text from what appears to be jacket cover blurbs from http://www.grisda.org/resources/bk_roth.htm and rearranges the text, but is still word for word copies in a different order.  I've removed the offending sections along with a minor amount of extra text that would not make sense with the removal of the main text leaving an article stub. -- Whpq 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Whpq, I think we have resolved the "entire text" issue. Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: #This article currently gives excessive emphasis to obscure Adventist WP:PRIMARY sources. Please read WP:NEWSORG for what are appropriate news sources for basing an article on.
#In particular the fact that his department once received a small grant is completely trivial -- most major university departments would receive hundreds such grants each year, and they would amount for only a tiny proportion of the departmental budget.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, trivial is in the eyes of the editor. For Roth, the leader of a biology department of a university that advocates a FRINGE view, this three year grant is interesting (a criteria for a wikipedia article). The study of this serious and widespread disease is relevant to Roth's story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here we go again. Actually, "trivial" is a matter of WP:CONSENSUS, and I've never found an editor other than yourself who does not find such minutiae trivial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *Hi Hrafn, welcome back. You have much to add to this endeavor. Aren't even self-published sources okay for information about the person. Haven't church published sources been considered reliable for example, EWTN on Roman Catholic issues. Certainly the material presented is not self-published and the facts are reliable, there is much to do. If Roth, in his CV, says he was born in Switzerland, wouldn't that be an acceptable source? Self-published about himself. If Roth declares something under oath, that seems quite a reliable source, kind of self-published, yet if he lies he is in contempt of court. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *No. Light use of church sources for uncontroversial facts is considered acceptable. Preponderant use of them violates both WP:WEIGHT & WP:PSTS. This has been explained to you before. To the best of my knowledge none of the material cited to date was published by Roth himself, so that whole issue would appear to be a complete non sequitor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *Within the Young Earth creationist community and among the science journals who have published Roth's studies there is a respect for the science reports he has generated. This article is about the person Roth, in the overall community of scientists, he has contributed, as most scientists do, a small amount of information; mostly about invertebrates.  DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please cease and desist making unsubstantiated assertions of doubtful relevance. Please instead cite WP:Verifiable facts and actual policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The claims that:
#" A tag [was] challenging the relevance of Roths study of schistosomiasis" and
#"Roth studies of Schistosomiasis has been challenged for relevance."
...is blatantly false.
::*Hrafn, you are quick to tear down and do very little to help build a better article. The accusation of Bearing False Witness is unsubstantiated.
::::*Repeatedly accusing somebody of "challenging the relevance of Roths study" when the material in question makes no mention that Roth himself conducted the study (only that his department did) is both (i) bearing false witness & (ii) violation of WP:TALK by "misrepresent[ing] other people". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Roth is the head of the department. The depardment is awarded the money. Anyone who knows how a department functions, understands that the department head sees these things through. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hrafn, the grant is relevant to Roth's department. The granting institution would not make the grant if they didn't consider it important. $17000 is small but it was big enough to warrant a news item and if he had pocketed the money, it would have caused quite a furor. The grant is relevant on the face of it. Why are you so against such an assertion? Just because bigger universities would consider this small change doesn't mean that Roth's department viewed it similarly. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *What a load of nonsense. The USPHS probably spends more than this each year on postage -- it represents no evidence whatsoever as to what they consider to be "important". The only supposed "new item" is in a WP:PRIMARY Adventist source. I am against it because it is in gross violation of WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT & WP:NOT -- a point that has been made to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *Thou protesteth too much. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine! Everything that you do/claim that is in violation of a policy that has previously been explained to you (which is pretty much everything that you have included here) will simply be reverted/rebutted with the simple statement "WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of a policy that has already been explained to DonaldRichardSands." Is that sufficient minimum of 'protesting' for you? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think we need to address one issue at a time. But, we don't agree. Hrafn, you and I don't see eye to eye on very much. I don't understand. I can work with most editors, but you bring a hostility to the discussion which make it very difficult to get to square one.  DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *First you challenge a birth place, not self-published but published by the same faith community of millions of members. Then you challenge a relatively small grant important to a small institution and prestigious to the institution as well.  I agree that the money given by the Health agency probably did spend more on postage. But I contend that the publishing of this grant shows that it was important to the school and its faith community and others looking to the school for any evidence of acceptability. It was relevant. Not from your eyes. But you come across hostile. This is no surprise that we cannot work in harmony on an article. Get used to it. Some people have had experience working with hostile editors. That being said, I have a high regard for your experience and believe that this article will be better for your ideas as long as you don't destroy what has already been done. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *The question on which we differ is not verifiability. Rather is on reliable sources. You claim that Adventist publications are unreliable sources regarding Roth's birth place. I disagree. I say that even if Roth himself published his birth place, that would be a reliable source according to WP rules. Even self-published sources are reliable about the person himself. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *No I bloody well DID NOT claim "that Adventist publications are unreliable sources" -- I claim that CREATIONIST sources are unreliable -- a point that has been established numerous times on WP:FTN and WP:RSN On a related but separate point, I have pointed out that Adventist sources would be subject to restrictions due to WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:SELFPUB. 18:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, now we seem to be making progress. Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable. Baldwin's book is an Adventist publication. Adventists are creationists, so we may need to clarify that. The birth place is published by a reliable source. Show us otherwise. Certainly to mentions someone's birthplace is not adding too much weight to the article. And even if it was Self-published, a birth place is an acceptable self-published fact. I see no valid complaint about Baldwin's source regarding Roth's birthplace. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bearing false witness

message: #WP:TLDNR, so just skimmed.
#Regurgitating 50k of material onto a talkpage on-the-trot is completely excessive.
#Please sign talkpage posts.
#Excessive usage of adventist primary sources.
#Inappropriate use of unreliable third-party sources.
Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT again. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DonaldRichardSands: I "attack" your work because it is in gross and obstinate violation of Wikipedia policy and good editing practice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *It seems that we disagree. If you are going to help me, you may need to find a kinder editor who agrees with you to show me the error of my ways. Your hostile attacks are not working. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's a better idea -- why don't you find an editor who does not insist on violating policy at nauseating length and with a continuous stream of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and I'll work with them. My hostility is a direct consequence of your own excess.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will continue to work on this article. I certainly encourage you and all other interested editors to pitch in and let's make this a good article or feature article. We can do it. I have helped bring a few articles to GA status before and have helped another editor to reach a DYK status. It can happen. You have helped other articles before. You can do it. :)  DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on sections Suggested Outline through Early Life 

message: The over-detailed section. I don't see the over detail. The section describes which institutions Roth worked at. Hrafn, why not propose a rewording here, so we can examine what you think it should say. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hrafn, it does no good to throw labels into the discussion. It accomplishes very little. Let's talk in a sensible manner. We are not going to agree, but at least we will know where we disagree. These labels might make you feel powerful, or something, but it does little for me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *DRS: I have already explained why this material is inappropriate (see #Comments), therefore your demand for further explanation constitutes WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I therefore see neither sense nor value in further discussion with you. Everything you have said on this entire talkpage "does little for me" (as it is pervasively without basis in fact or policy) -- so you will pardon me if I am rather less rthan sympathetic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the section tagged really suffering from over-detail

message: I realize that this Ariel A. Roth article is not about me. But, I have become somewhat the focus of discussion. A few words about one aspect of my WP editing may be helpful. 
It has been suggested that my involvement with my faith community, Adventism, has caused me to have blinders on making it so I cannot sense the bigger picture. My faith community is an integral part of my life but my tendency to include detail is not because of that. My work on the Letitia Youmans article illustrates this detailist tendency. Youmans had no connection to my faith community, yet my detailing ways on that article are obvious. The main information about her came from an autobiography of hers, alas a primary source. I cut my WP editing teeth with a very patient editor who tried to teach me how an autobiography is problematic. The balance between good information and slanted information is a difficult one to attain for me, as Hrafn and others can attest. The Adventist Church has one of the most thorough online archives systems I have seen anywhere on the Internet. For me, it is a gold mine of information. Many WP Adventist articles can be improved with the information available in those archives. But, to only use those is not good. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An insufferable detailest 

message: Our guidelines call for minimal use of external links but this is not being practiced here. Maintaining a list of ELs for a topic is not what Wikipedia is about. I propose we replace this inappropriate linkfarm with one or two links to independently curated link directories, if such exist, and if there are none, then drop the section and let interested readers conduct their own Internet searches. Jojalozzo 04:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ariel A. Roth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=952503&recordOId=952482
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625220129/http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive21-25/25-3hayward.pdf to http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive21-25/25-3hayward.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406115211/http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/15-2lugenbeal.pdf to http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/15-2lugenbeal.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.darwinisdead.com/Creation%20Science%20Fellowship%20of%20Calvary%20Chapel.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :There were six entries in the "External links" with sourcing information. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . 
*WP:ELCITE:  
*WP:ELBURDEN:   --  Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links