Talk:List of wildflowers of Soldiers Delight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible COI , Unpublished original research[edit]

I'd like to bring discussion to a possible Conflict of Interest. A significant amount of work on this article, Lichens of Soldiers Delight and several other Soldiers Delight articles (listed below) have been created and edited by user Ed Uebel.

From the article lead:

The following list of herbaceous plants is based greatly on the work of Ed Uebel [6] and comes from the publications by Fleming et al. 1995,[7] Monteferrante 1973, [8] Reed 1984, [9] Wennerstrom 1995, [10] and the unpublished data by Worthley 1955-1985.[11]"

And from Lichens of Soldiers Delight article:

The following list of lichen species found at Soldiers Delight is based upon:(1) the 1977 publication by Skorepa, Norden and Windler [S,N,W](2) the species of lichens from Soldiers Delight in Elmer Worthley's personal herbarium [EGW](3) my (Ed Uebel) observations [ECU]"

Possible conflict of interest not-withstanding, Ed Uebel has admittedly included unpublished data and original research (WP:NOR) as reference support for some information included in related articles he is editing. Wikipedia is not the venue in to display unpublished original research. Policy does not prohibit editors with specialized knowledge to cite themselves, however, "it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." The editor cannot rely on citing original researchas a primary source.

It is also likely given the edit history, and type of edits from 69.255.153.62 and 68.48.137.104 and 69.143.226.7 that these are also Ed Uebel. Other articles where Ed Uebel and previously mentioned IPs edit heavily Woody Plants of Soldiers Delight, Graminoids of Soldiers Delight,Ferns of Soldiers Delight, Lichens of Soldiers Delight, Lichens of Maryland

  • Additional verifiability from other sources need to be added where possible
  • All original research, and observations which cannot be properly verified need to be removed
  • Wikipedia is a notdirectory. Information should not be presented as a depository for plant types. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good news is that with the exception of a few of the sources, the sources are published and everything is footnoted to particular sources (if only all of our lists were that careful!). But you are right that Elmer Worthley's checklist and personal observations (by anyone) can't be checked by other editors, and shouldn't serve as the basis for these articles. The whole question of how to publish plant lists and how to evaluate their reliability is a fairly complex one, but in the context of wikipedia, we need to rely on other publishers (who at least in theory have ways of dealing with what to publish and what not to). I wouldn't get too excited about WP:COI and some of the other things; I don't see evidence of WP:POV-pushing, etc, just someone who has some data which the rest of the world doesn't. Nor do I see a problem with the basic concept of articles which describe the flora of soldier's delight. Sure, it is more detailed than most of what is on wikipedia, but the basic concept isn't really different from, say, Yellowstone#Flora and provided we can source things to published sources, it is notable. Kingdon (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To be clear, I don't believe there is POV pushing in this article, I think these are good faith edits. (Most well documented) I also believe, that there should be full disclosure regarding Ed Uebel's involvement in these articles. I mentioned the possibility of COI because, a cursory glance at these articles may indicate, one editor publishing his own work. I wished it to be discussed. It appears Ed Uebell (who is Elmer Worthley, by the way?) has a legitimate authority in this area, as established via referenced published works. [Note: I have not personally verified these published materials]. Still,as you said, even if he is an expert, and can specifically define plants or characteristics, it must be verifiable. This may mean, his unattributed original research, however valid, needs to appear in a third party publication before inclusion in this article. I, as an editor and non-expert on this subject matter, understandingly have no means to verify that research. Regarding your in article edit, I think an external link is best. Thanks for making the change. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know them personally, but Elmer Worthley was a botanist, married to Jean Worthley. A google search finds many hits (although I didn't see a bio near the top of the results), including species named after him, students who remember studying with him, etc. Ed Uebell has been editing some of the papers he left behind (at least in the case of Maryland Bryophytes Collected by Elmer G. Worthley mentioned at [1]). I don't know Uebell's training, although I suppose it isn't as important as the quality of the information (cf the WP:EXPERT cans of worms). Kingdon (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of wildflowers of Soldiers Delight. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wildflowers_of_Soldiers_Delight&oldid=1203703797"