Talk:Cattle mutilation/larson

Bob Larson

I've added a POV-section tag to a section of the cults section. Basically I have two objections. Firstly, the cult hypothesis is being treated negatively, rather than neutrally. Secondly that it is far too large with many non-notable sections. Jefffire 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved Larson's entry right to the end of the section. This way it is clear that most of the critisism isn't aimed at him personally. Only the bit that comes afterwards is related to him.

You are free to add some pro-cult material to even up the score especially any reports that you can find proving cult connections. I found several sites, but I suspect that they would not meet up with your standards for WP:V and WP:RS so I have refraimed from including much.

The three subheadings could be shorter. I will look at it, but Lisapollison asked both of us kindly not to do any large edits while the page was being looked at. I suggest that the Talk:Cattle mutilation/private sandboxsection for this page be used rather than the live site. Put in your draft revision, and I will put in mine. We can then take things from there without hacking the live site around and fighting over edits.

perfectblue 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been refraining from large scale changes. My point is that the cult hypothesis is not notable enough to warrent the level of detail it is recieving. I'm not suggesting a total cut, simply a streamlining of what is there, with links for those interested in learning more. There is no need to stamp it into the ground with an extended criticism section (with original research present). Jefffire 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You said earlier that you were British, which I think is the key to our differing perspective on this. While the cult hypothesis might be quite mundane in Britain (Particularly as it's bee proven in some instances), but in the US it's much much bigger.

It's probably the hypothesis that gets people the most worked up out of all of them, particularly in the American heartlands.

I tihnk that it's tailed off a bit now, but TV evangelists like Larson used to regularly link cults and any kind of animal mutilations, and would use them to warn people of the 'bad things in their midst' etc.

I could find some pro/supporting cites for cult activity, and fo the anti-cult arguments, but I don't believe that you would accept them. The tend to be a bit like this page http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowlands/6583/cattle038.html and you have alreay said that we shouldn't use infomration from geocities etc.

perfectblue 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I now have enough information to expand the pro-cult section to even things up a bit. But it wuld have to be 'why people believe' rather than verifiable facts from labs. Which I know you don't like. I am sandboxing a VERY rough draft.

perfectblue 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to tell me preferences I didn't realise I had. You are missing the point entirely, the section is badly referenced, OR and Undue Weight. Until it is verified otherwise add to it is pointless. Jefffire 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm attempting to re-weight it, put in satisfactory references, and to include more verifiable material. You're not helping in this in the slightest.

What IS verifiable when it comes to cults? Very little, that's what. But this doesn't mean that we should discard the entire section.

I'm sandboxing a modified piece based on the suppositions of an author about cult involvement. I am using your style of attiruting details for Onet, England, Etc as a guide.

I am also going to include a list of reasons why people attribute things to cults that shows why people believe that they are responsible, rather than aimed at proving that they are.

perfectblue 10:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If very little is verifiable then only include a little. That's WP:V. We didn't create these for a lark, they prevent Wikipedia from degenerating. Jefffire 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Verifiable as in they were published in a book and represent real claims, or Verifiable as in they have been proven true by labs?

perfectblue 14:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Verify, verb. Meaning to confirm as true, or substantiate. Unverified material should be removed. WP:V Jefffire 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about two seperate things in one sentence. Have you actually read WP:V all the way through. And I quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

This means that when I quote an author on a subject, I only have to prove that the author really said that, not that the statment itself is true.

Therefore I can legitimately add an item of mutilation folklore so long as I can prove that it is a real item of folklore (for example, by citing a well known book on the subject), and I don't try to pass it off as a scientifically/historically proven fact.

It also means that I can cite claims made about mutilations, so long as I can prove that the claim was made and who made it.

perfectblue 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. In fact, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you for the last week or so. Did you think I was saying otherwise? Please also remember that things need to notable for inclusion, as Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Jefffire 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're entire contribution to the debate 'appears' to be saying that it is not enough to prove that somebody believes something, but that you must prove that what they believe is true.

As for notability. Cults might not be a big issue in Britain, but they envoke a lot of emotion in the US which makes them worthy of inclusion. We must consider global notability, not just notability in Europe.

perfectblue 16:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to where you are getting your understanding of my opinions as they appear to be completly different to everying I have espoused. If something is presented as a claim, it must be verified that someone has claimed it, which is easy. If you present something as a fact, it must be verified from an extremely good source if it is contentious. Jefffire 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have inappropriately cited WP:V and WP:RS several times. For example with Onet and the NIDS. Under WP:V and WP:RS I can cite anything published by Onet that I find on the NIDS website because I can prove that that material that I am citing exists, and the NIDS is a reliable source for information by Onet because it is his employer (If they say that he wrote it, then he probably did write it). You cited WP:V in a way that made it appear that I couldn't cite Onet because the work he did couldn't be independently verified, and WP:RS in a way that made it appear that I couldn't use the NIDS as a source because their work was intrinsicly unreliable. Neither of which are the purpose of WP:V or WP:RS.

Regardless of what you actually meant. The way that you wrote it was very difficult to be interprited any other way. Let this be the end of the matter.

perfectblue 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you aren't actualy understanding my comments. Any claim that someone makes can be verified with an article by them. However you have been presenting claims as fact, with only an article from a non-RS. You can cite NIDS to verify NIDS claims, however you cannot cite them to verify something as fact. Your recent rewrite of the cults section shows that you still do not fully grasp Wikipedias policies on these matters, particularily WP:OR, and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Jefffire 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is you who are A) Not reading what I am writting in the correct context and B) and not understanding Wiki regulations.

WP:V states that something does not have to be proven to be true. It only has to be proven to be verified that it exists. I am not claiming that anything is true, I am reporting on claims and beliefs made by others.

WP:RS states that the source has to be a reliable source of information on that topic. Not that the methods used by that source have to be reliable. The NIDS is a reliable source for information on Onet etc. WP:RS is designed to prevent you from using sources that misquote other people.

WP:OR states clearly that you can combine information already published so long as you don't generate any unique conclusions that are not contained in those materials.

The cults section satisfies all of these requirements.

You are out of line and are overstepping the bounds of civility. This is bordering on harrasment. Please step back.

perfectblue 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you are taking an unhelpful combatative attitute to this. I will not be drawn into such things. If you are looking for a fight, you won't find it here. With regards to the article, I repeat my earier comments, NIDS on Onet are perfectly accpetable for verifying that they or the other holds certian opinions. However, they cannot be relied upon to accurately report upon scientific articles, especialy if the conclusions are controversial, such as claims of superheated collagen or the like. These must be verified from a source which is above reasonable reproach, for example an online edition of the original, or a review in a mainstream journal. Jefffire 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean Sir/Madam?

"they cannot be relied upon to accurately report upon scientific articles" - WP:V and WP:RS do not require this, and you do not have the authority to state it either. Attempting to do so on this page would be WP:OR.

"for example an online edition of the original" 1) Labs do not publish online necropsy reports, 2) some of these reports are over 30 years old 3) I can link to the original NIDS reports, but you don't like this.

"a review in a mainstream journal" a mainstream journal that deals with a fringe topic? To my knowledge there are no mainstream journals like this. The best that you will get is a pier reviewed article from BTL.

"These must be verified from a source which is above reasonable reproach" WP:RS requires that the source be above reproach for reporting the article accurately (no missquotes or made up qoutes etc), not the findings of the article. WP:V also makes this clear.

perfectblue 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Jefffire 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are deliberately distorting and missapplying Wiki Rules in support of your own opionins about a body or group. This is wrong and I do not appreciate you attempting enfore your personal views on a comunity page.

I am attempting to show the source of people's beliefs or that these beliefs exist. I am not in any way attempting confirm their beliefs as being true/false. I can therefore legitimately include sources that demonstrate that this belief exists so long as I WP:V that the source material actually exists.

In the case of demonstrating an opinon, WP:RS only applies if I'm citing somebody who is quoting the somebody as having said something.

If you don't like the wording, then change it. Don't delete the souce and then demand another.

The claim was not backed up by the source. WP:V said that the wording did not match the source, WP:RS said that the source was not authoritative enough to justify that statement. It was an either/or choice, so I removed the source. I've reworded it now to make it clear it's a claim. If you believe that I am misinterpreting the rules feel free to bring it up on the talk pages of the policies or ask an admin. Jefffire 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "Consistancy" criticism entirely. There was no indication in the section that it was a valid criticism, since there is no reason why a cult would be consistant, or that it would have to be a single cult. Jefffire 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ritual = an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite. See Ritual sacrifice. Consitancy is an integral component of an animal sacrifice. Otherwise it would just be a 'thrill kill'.

perfectblue 11:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do be providing verification that this is a criticism, since it is clearly specious. Jefffire 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rewording the entry. This won't be a problem any more.

perfectblue 11:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)