User talk:Pablo Mayrgundter

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

I hope I don't write in hasty mode, when I suggest that the suffrage-as-basis-for-legitimacy of democracies would rather belong in an article on democracy, including the neccessary discussion on legitimacy (Max Weber and half a dozen more... ;-), than in an article on Suffrage, where the discussion and distinctions would soon be about other things than suffrage. Appart from this I don't have much to object to anything.

I would however give an example: Finland is a country I visit now and then. Finland had between the 1720s and the 1770s experienced a, for its time, pretty advanced kind of Parliamentarism, which in combination with the Peasantry's representative participation in legislation and decissions on taxation (having been the rule constantly since the 1540s) must be judged as a comparably democratic government than the more autocratic constitutional monarchy which followed in 1772. The government's legitimacy seems however to have increased as the influence of the representatives decreased on executive matters. In 1809 the territory was ceded to Russia, but the legitimacy of the new government was by-and-large preserved by continuity of Finland's constitution and religion (Lutheran compared to Russia's orthodoxy). Although the representative assembly didn't convene again until the 1860s, the government's legitimacy is held to have been preserved by two factors: ¹/The government's efficiacy in achieving the goals of the expressed Public Opinion, and ²/The executive "Senate" being composed according to similar principles as the Privy Council of Sweden before 1809. Universal suffrage was achieved in 1906, but didn't much affect the legitimacy of the government. Rather the legitimacy seems to have decreased, as shown by the rebellion in 1918 by approximately 50% of the population living in the southernmost part of the country. After the rebellion having been quenched, the suffrage of the rebellous was indeed for decennias seen as decreasing the democratic government's legitimacy. Today, it could maybe be argued that transparency is a more important corner stone of the Democracy of Finland - beside the just function of the judicial system. Limitations on corruption aswell as a sense of the voter's ability to participate with a responsible informed vote can both be derived from the citizens' principial right of insight in documents of governmental agencies and beauracracies. The legitimacy of the Prime Minister Anneli Jäätteenmäki turned however out to be critically dependent on the confindence in her veracity.

I've above tried to express my point of view, that the legitimacy of a government (democratic or not) is not neccessarily primarily dependent on the suffrage or the technical power of the representatives, nor is it neccessarily co-varying with the suffrage.

-- Ruhrjung 04:24 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

User categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, I'm Iridescent. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Principle of charity— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ‑ Iridescent 10:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Can you advise on how to proceed? Maybe see my last comment. I'm trying to bring the article into a normal form for science articles by introducing some section of criticism, completeness or alternative theories. I've given example articles from major theories physics and biology where this is in practice. Seems like a positive step forward.

Cheers,

Pablo Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm simply advising you that the topic is subject to significantly higher expectations for sourcing, discussion and conduct than most. You ought to read a number of essays,policies and guidelines, since you appear to be starting from a hypothesis, and then looking for sources, which is backwards from how articles are normally constructed. A reading of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and maybe WP:BLUDGEON may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say I'm starting from a hypothesis?

It's actually been the reverse. My intention is to start from editorial and behavioral best practices.

I saw the discussion, found myself agreeing that the article stands out as odd compared with the usual science articles on WP.

I've been trying to provide constructive edit suggestions to point that out, but have been subject to suppression and name calling.

I see you have not added a notice to User_talk:Hob_Gadling's page.

How are you choosing whom to notify? Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the discussion (who was not Hob Gadling) states, "Discussing "criticism" and what to include without pointing to high-quality secondary sourcing is not fruitful." That is a fundamental requirement, which has been repeatedly explained to you by more than one editor. As for Hob Gadling, he is an experienced editor who is well aware of the contentious topics protocols, having received them in the past and having participated in arbitration proceedings, while you do not appear to have been informed of them. Focusing on a single editor who has taken the time to explain policy to you, as an opponent, is a further concern. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like me mentioning Hob, but I can only judge from what I see and I did suspect favoritism. Thank you for informing me of the history. I couldn't have known.

Please note that I've never edited the article, just the talk page.

It's obvious that it's contentious subject and I was doing my best to introduce a constructive approach and quickly focus on a workable improvement. I definitely read and understood the point that was being made about high-quality sourcing, but clearly there is disagreement on what qualifies and the conversation was rushed due to threat of closing.

Let me recap what I think is the most essential point: The article should have a section on minority views.

The first sentence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" and then importantly "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." (bold in original)

I don't see minority views being adequately represented in the current article. Do you? I suggest including the APS letter as an example of the split between the majority and minority view.

The APS letter[APS Letter] is a secondary source of great importance since they are eminent scientists whose members contribute to the IPCC research[APS/IPCC], and this letter is them *commenting on the IPCC's science*, which is the definition secondary source. Both the letter and its dissent[APS Dissent] meet the above criteria. e.g.

The letter:

"The evidence is incontrovertible"

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult"

"There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement"

The dissent:

"there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals."

"Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries."

"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes"

The amended:

"the IPCC has recently concluded"

"As recognized by prior and forthcoming Assessment Reports of the IPCC, major scientific challenges remain in our abilities to project, adapt to, and mitigate anthropogenic climate change."

It's also notable that the original APS Letter was amended due to the criticism [APS Letter Amended], e.g. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." was changed to "Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed2 since the mid-twentieth century", because the point was taken that "the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas."

This was a real debate that was had between experts in the field and minds and official statements were changed. Pursuant to WP's goals, the readers of the article would benefit from being informed of this as they rely on WP as a reliable, unbiased source of majority and minority views on important topics like this.

[APS/IPCC] Here are IPCC AR6 Technical Authors (aka "lead authors") (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport_small.pdf page 35) who are also APS members, have published in their journals or have done primary research cited in AR6, with supporting citations:

William Collins https://aiforgood.itu.int/speaker/william-d-collins/

Robert E. Kopp https://www.bobkopp.net/assets/cv.pdf

Valerio Lucarini https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SOD_CommentsResponses_AnnexVI_Modes_of_Variability.pdf

[APS Letter] Adopted by the Leadership Council https://ligould.com/Open%20Letter%20to%20the%20Council%20of%20the%20American%20Physical%20Society.pdf

[APS Dissent] Signed by 54 APS membershttps://ligould.com/Open%20Letter%20to%20the%20Council%20of%20the%20American%20Physical%20Society.pdf

[APS Letter Ammended] https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]