Talk:Sclater's guenon

updates

Please note that the IUCN reference information was updated in the text and citation section to reflect the 2008 Red List, released in Oct. 2008. lynnerbaker (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LynnerBaker

UtherSRG ,

I am confused. Why do you insist on constantly reverting the update by LynnerBaker on the Sclater's Guenon?

Starting with the obvious, Baker mentions Cercopan.org in her update. Why would you delete this information? To my knowledge, Cercopan currently houses the only captive Sclaters in the world. To that end, Baker is likely the world's leading authority on this particular primate. If you have anydoubts, you might consider A) actually reading her sources, or B) contacting Zena Tooze, the founder of Cercopan.

Your constant reverts without substantiation are quite ridiculous. We can move forward with this issue if you insist.

Regards,

Dr. Bolen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolebuns (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'all obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works. Please read the following: WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:copyvio. If it is her work (which we can not verify that she is who she claims to be) then it falls under WP:COI and/or WP:NOR. If she is not Baker, then it falls under WP:copyvio. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Violations?

Peer reviewed sources, such as those posted by Lynnerbaker, do not -- by any definition -- represent "self promotion", nor do they violate either of the guidlines you cite.

All of the sources she posted are verifiable by anybody that wishes to take the time to do so. That would include people that have access to the relevant publications, such as The African Journal of Ecology, to name one. Being an expert in this field, you obviously do, or would like to. (it is easy).

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2007.00849.x

Note the DOI number

I found her updates to be informative and a welcome addition to this page. In addition, her update supplied a photo and map that are valuable (no?) to people interested in this primate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolebuns (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some possible solutions

The immediate problem is this: some of the material is sourced from a website we are obliged to treat presumptively as copyrighted, so its contents cannot be included in a Wikipedia article unless it has been licensed for reuse and redistribution under the terms of the GFDL. The best way to do this is to include a note to that effect on the website itself. Please be aware that licensing for reuse under the GFDL means that you are granting "anyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."

Second, the copyright holder should contact the Wikimedia Foundation by means of an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (replacing "at" with the @ sign) stating that she releases the material for use on Wikipedia. She should have a response from permissions-en at wikimedia dot org prior to including material from the site or it may be removed again for the same reason.

UtherSRG's concerns about original research and conflict of interest are not unreasonable, but neither are they insurmountable. Because it is a tertiary source and only includes material that has previously been published by reliable sources, Wikipedia does indeed prohibit the inclusion of original research and material based on original research. However, experts may draw on their own work in their contributions to Wikipedia (please see "citing oneself") provided that work has previously been published. This material should be written in the third person and be accompanied by inline citations detailing the source.

As for conflict of interest, this is a guideline rather than a policy, and there is room for flexibility: the core policies WP:COI is intended to support are neutral point of view and verifiability. Writing about oneself and one's organization is certainly usually discouraged, and even on those occasions when it is appropriate it needs to be done with great care. But provided the edits are not self-promoting and are undertaken with due regard for neutral point of view and verifiability, and that that the final product reflects the full range of views on a given topic and does not give undue prominence to the expert contributor's own, they are permissible. Editors drawing on their own published work for their contributions to Wikipedia are expected to discuss such contributions in advance on the article's talk page. To quote the guideline:

• "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."

Hope this helps. --Rrburke^(talk) 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your help. I am not sure I have the time or energy to work on this. I doubt Cercopan would give up all rights to its content, particularly photos, but since the Wikipedia data were not identical to the Cercopan data (and key resources are cited in both), I still don't see the major problem.

If the PrimateWiki folks ever decide to double-check the accuracy of their postings, then I'd be happy to contribute. I have had so many people remark on the inaccuracies in Wikipedia, that at least a decent number of people who view the profile will be suspicious (i.e., "holy land" -- no such thing for this species).

I am not sure what your role in Wikipedia is, but I would please strongly recommend passing this feedback along to the people there interested in accuracy. Thanks again for your help; I really appreciate it. Lynnerbaker 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "holy land" bit, and added the image. After some more cleaning up, is there anything else that you object to? The rest of your version of the article was not written in a neutral point of view, in my opinion, and so is difficult to include.

Regarding your editing: It is your agitation that is the basis for the WP:COI policy. Subjects we are too close to often engender a high degree of emotion. Please consider this in the future. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL?

The correct version of this page cited several peer-reviewed scientific articles and books. You can't get more neutral than this. Just because I happen to be the author of two articles is meaningless. I just happen to be someone who cared enough to submit an update. If you are not a scientist, you may not understand what it means to have peer-reviewed articles. They are not opinion pieces, but based on research. I think the emotion involved, in this case, comes from people who originally set up this page and feel ownership of it and aren't willing to let others alter it, even if they improve it. Lynnerbaker 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)