For two years now this has been Wikipedia's article on Y1 (tobacco):


Does anyone know more about this? Seems awfully bold of Wikipedia to be saying.

I was about ready to slap a {{prod}} tag on it, but did a search. It seems to be an actual something or another... scanning some of the search returned documents at government sites suggests that there is or was a tobacco codenamed Y1, and the article is on a legitimate topic. The "illegally imported" part seems shaky to me though, without sources, and overall, it's not a very good article...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=of...cco&btnG=Search (the overall search)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/kessler.html (a source that mentions the illegality of exporting seeds)... whether that's a good source or not, I dunno. (It is a transcript of an interview with the former director of the US FDA... I'm not saying Dr. Kessler isn't a good person to be quoting, just that quoting a transcript of an interview isn't quite as good a source as a direct quote from a journal)

Taking this article farther might require synthesis... the sources all seem to only mention Y1 in passing for the most part. Avoiding that by finding direct sources would be a fair bit of searching, I expect.

Kudos to Neil.

Yep, ask and ye shall receive.

Well done, sir. It's almost big enough to nominate for DYK now!

You read my mind - I've just been adding more, and nominated it!

I wonder if this counts as a positive use of WR ...

Added it to the list

There are a few others you should consider and add to Poupon's list.

Like this one.

And this one.

And this one.

And this big one.

Phew! I'm sure there are dozens more, but I'm poupped.

Greg

That pun stunk!

I think most all of those are ineligible as he's collecting only items "starting at the point I wrote my scale of Wikipedia Review badness" whatever that is (but I think it's recent)...

(this post is "socializing"... or is it conveying useful information?)

So now "illegally exported seed" has morphed to:



Question #1 - have any of you actually read and understood source 4?

Question #2 - Is Neil taking responsibility for publishing this statement?

By the way, if you ever get the chance to go hear Jeffrey Wigand speak, I recommend. Russell Crowe does a great job portraying him in the movie too. Has all his mannerisms nailed.

#1) I read all the way through source 4. I found it a very interesting read. I'm not sure I understood all the nuances but my read is taht Kessler is alleging some very serious malfeasance on the part of the Tobacco Cartel. Very serious... at least under some analyses. If one knows that nicotine is addictive, planning to make the product contain more... seems iffy. On the other hand you can argue that there is a net benefit to already addicted smokers as they got less tar to get their fix of nicotine, and since they were addicted already...

#2) I think Neil has done a good job of relating what the sources say. I'm concerned there may be a bit of synthesis there, but source 4 says it pretty clearly, if not as succinctly. If I were Neil maybe I would have said "allegedly illegal" but that's a nit.

Really, this now is a much better article and Neil deserves major kudos for it. Heck I may have to go give him a barnstar or something.

I'm not convinced it would have been corrected this way, this quickly without you bringing to the attention of the readership here.... WP is so big and there are so many places to raise things, and so many articles that need attention, that it's sometimes difficult to even become aware of things like this. But this route isn't necessarily scalable to all the problematic articles either.

WP:BADSEEDS?

Statement A


Statement B


Statement C


Here's what I think. Neil has no clue where the seed started, where it was exported from, where it was reimported to, and what illegal act, if any, was committed.

You're ready to heap a barnstar on him for defamation, carelessness, and stupidity. Way to go.

whatev...

More: I'm "ready to heap a barnstar" on Neil for taking a stub with an unsupported allegation and working to expand it into something useful and well referenced. The sequence of imports and exports needs clarifying yet, see the talk page, but I don't see any "defamation, carelessness, and stupidity" from Neil.

I might see it from others in this thread, but not from Neil... He has just done a lot of work (I did a little tiny bit, he did a lot) and what does he get from you? Defamation. That strikes me as careless and stupid. Your mileage may vary.

Sorry if your raising this topic meant that an article got fixed instead of it being a vehicle for you to rail against whatever you felt like railing against, but I see it as a good thing that things get fixed. As I said above, identifying individual articles this way and fixing them massively doesn't scale but it was worth doing just the same.

Next time don't speak in riddles, just make your point, eh?

Edit: Neil, not Neal... Oops! ... no wonder I was having so much trouble finding your talk page to give you that barnstar!

What you think is called a theory of mind regarding Neil's beliefs and state of knowledge (including the evidence upon which Neil's beliefs would presumptively be grounded).

Your theory of mind about Neil may or may not be accurate.

What I don't understand is what evidence you are relying on to posit your proposed theory of mind about Neil.

I've rewritten the article somewhat. Neil - not Neal, thank you Lars - knows his own mind. I think it makes more sense now - Thatcher kindly produced an additional source on the talk page (god bless Lexis/Nexis).

I would rather be careless and stupid - although I don't think I have been - than bitter and ungracious.

Here's what I think: Emperor has sand in his vagina. Discuss.

Traditional publishers get their facts straight before printing a statement that someone has broken the law. At Wikipedia, this is done after the fact, if ever.

Journalists report what a source says and try to mangle it as little as possible. At Wikipedia, statements from sources are merely ammunition to be skimmed and used as convenient to support whatever assertion was started with.

At Wikipedia, it's all ok as long as the people hurt are wearing black hats.

The problem here is that there is no functioning social contract and too many anankastic conditionals. Theory of mind.

I'm not sure if you can use it as an adjective, but that last paragraph is far too Moulton for me. (ie, too many buzzwords for me to even care enough to decrypt it)

I didn't have an assertion in mind while improving the article. I have remedied some of the errors I made in my first initial stab at improving the article.

Ah, another person who hasn't been interviewed by very many journalists.

Er, that's sort of the problem of being interviewed by journalists. There is no contract. Social or otherwise. And if you ask for one, you'll find that's the best way to keep from being pestered for an interview you ever found. You can get money before you get editorial control or review-before-publication options. Somebody might call to read you a quote, but you'll never see the context it's placed in, before it's on paper in front of your eyes, all out-of-the-barn.

One of the many problems with Wikipedia is the extent to which they've taken the newpaper, courtroom, and campaign models of truthfinding, and all-but forsaken the university and scientific models of truthfinding (except as occurs by IAR when the buggers sneak in). And if you don't mind riding in an airplane designed and built by the truth-standards of lawyers and politicians and newspaper editors, okay, fine. But I think I'm taking the bus.

The page has been deleted - surprise!

Kirill nominated it for MFD, but then Poupon voluntarily requested speedy deletion (U1, user request). I guess you'll have to ask him why he didn't contest the MFD.

Perhaps because it was being subverted by diabolical malcontents like Lar.

Hey! I'm not a malcontent.

But you are diabolical?


That explains certain things.

Awesome on the article guys.

And comments like this are going to be misquoted on The List no doubt.