User talk:JzG/Archive 117

GPS Article

Guy, Why do you say a topical ban is likely. The complaint is based on my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article. I have done just exactly what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the GPS article until a consensus is clearly established on the talk page. My writing of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" was in no way motivated by hostility. It was instead based on honest, objective, and correct criticism of the GPS article. I pointed out that in the Geometric Interpretation section of the GPS article, a reference was being used to justify a statement which was in no way supported by the reference. I pointed out other problems in the GPS article. It is important that objective criticism of the GPS article be made on the talk page. These other editors are attacking me because they don't like my honest, objective, and valid criticisms. Instead of discussing the technical content of the GPS article, they have engaged in this vicious attack on me. I do have disagreements with other editors, but I concentrate on criticizing the content of the article not other editors. These other editors are trying to censor me. But these criticisms which I make on the talk page are valuable because they can lead to a better GPS article. We need to keep the talk page free for honest, objective, and valid criticism. This call for a ban should be recognized for what it is, an attempt to censor criticism on the talk page. These editors will offer flimsy excuses to conceal their real intention to ban my criticism but you should see it for what it is. And that is an attempt to ban my honest, objective, and valid criticisms on the talk page of the GPS article. RHB100 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk page and archives. Oh, wait, you have, and you've still not spotted the problem. That would be why, then. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that there are hostile editors who don't like honest and objective criticism. I see that there are editors who have accused me of having a hostile attitude. But honest and objective criticism does not imply a hostile attitude. Please keep this in mind. I have done exactly what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article until there is a clear consensus on the talk page. Please tell me what you think is wrong with the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" that I have posted on the GPS talk page. I see what could be called the problem, but all of these are invalid. Please tell me what you think it is that I have done wrong so that I can defend myself. RHB100 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And I see that whenever your editing is challenged you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "laa laa laa I can't hear you". Guy (Help!) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I certainly have never done that. Tell me specifically what you are talking about. RHB100 (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, show me a single case where there has been a valid challenge of my editing where I have not responded to something to which I should have responded. Now I may not respond to invalid challenges to my edits. But I claim that I have always responded to every valid challenge of my editing. Now if you think there is a single case of a valid challenge to my editing where I did not respond then you tell me specifically what it is. I don't believe you can do that. But if you can I want to see it. RHB100 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

YOu just proved my point. Bye. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Misty Edwards sources

{{BLP sources}} is to be used when there are an insufficient number of inline sources for a biography of a living person. That's clearly not the case with Edwards. {{refimprove}} is the same, but for articles that are not biographies of a living persons. Again, clearly not the case with Edwards. Your stated purpose for restoring it was that "they are not independent". Again, not the case with Edwards. There is one tweet and nine from iTunes, which I would argue are not independent. Five public records entries that can clearly not be argued as being "not independent". Eight entries from crossrhythms. I have not investigated but suspect that they're reviews, not paid placements. Then there are eighteen from reputable publications from AllMusic, Christian Post, CCM Magazine and others. So I don't agree that they are not independent. But if you make your case on the article's talk page and consensus is reached there, we would have to determine what the violation is, because there is no template for "not independent" sources. Please stop editing tendentiously. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

You may want to familiarize yourself with Christian music sources.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that fans of this genre have rewritten the sourcing rules to pretend that the walled garden of fandom amounts to reliable sourcing. They have this in common with porn fans. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been rewritten. They are professional journalists and the sources are reliable based on the rules applied to GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Misty Edwards

Could you please give some detail on the deletion/recreation of this article yesterday? Please reply on the article talk page.

mistakenly deleted it as G4. It is still a lovingly polished puff-piece. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Define puff-piece. That sounds like POV. Also, you are insisting on tagging for more sources. There are already 41 references. How many more do you feel are necessary? By WP:MUSICBIO #1, it appears that only more than one (multiple) source is necessary. I see ASCAP, Billboard, CCM Magazine, Cross Rhythms, Relevent Magazine, AllMusic, and New Release Today.. Nyth63 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Erocktica a puff-piece? There are NO sources for the article. Perhaps it should be speedy-deleted. What is with the section called Media coverage? Should that not be used as in-line citations? The article was created almost six years ago, but it is still a mess. Nyth63 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is another one: Rockbitch. There are only 4 citations, one is PRIMARY and the one to BBC is press release. Perhaps this one should be deleted also. Nyth63 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fringe Stuff

Thanks. Whether it was worth being blocked or not is another matter. But you at least do seem to see that what I have an issue with isn't "woo woo stuff not being believed" Ghughesarch (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've suddenly found myself the target of a huge amount of editorial blocking. Is it something I've said? or an overzealous admin going over the top? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like over-reaction. Bish is generally a lovely person, so try talking nicely to her? I haven't had time to pick it all apart yet. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Required notice; I quoted one or more of your diffs, and you're one of the closers

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:DIVA. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde

Regarding this, I definitely think he's an editor to keep an eye on. And I think Doug Weller feels the same way. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The name certainly implies a connection tot he Orange Order, which is rarely good. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Arbcom Request

If you think my purpose on the article is to "airbrush out the historical view of this massacre" and compare me to a holocaust denier, I think a review of the talk page discussion as well as the overall changes to the article since I became involved would help you to realize neither of those characterizations are true. WeldNeck (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no view on you personally, I do have a view on the tone of some of the changes that people have tried to force through. I also have a view on the COI issue, which I will state in due course. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes in general or changes specifically related to this case? WeldNeck (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

General comment about opinion overriding reliable sources

JzG, may I open this section on your Talk page, because you are obviously concerned by quack-science and all kind of fringe theories. So do I, despite your opinion relating to my "supposed to be" SPA status. I am of course concerned by the quality of Wikipedia datas. But I am even more concerned by all type of lobbies and groups of interest trying to push their ideas in an unfair way. This statement is valid for both sides. When "strong" personnal opinions are making people so blind that they cannot realize how much their faith in "fighting quackery" is driving them into the same bias than the "fringe's advocates", I strongly believe this is a concern for the quality of Wikipedia. "Swimming against the mainstream" shall maybe help opening their eyes. Let me take one example and let's discuss it if you don't mind and if you are ready to help the newbie. You did edit one of my contributions. I know the history, the meaning and the connotation of "allopathic". Up to a certain point, I fully agree with your edit. I would have used the same word ("alternative") if I would have had to produce my own content for Wikipedia. This is a "personnal opinion". But the source (WHO) is using "allopathic". The question is not if "my opinion" or "your opinion" count. The real question is "how much weight has a reliable source like the World Health Organization" in front of "your" of "my opinion" for producing valuable content in Wikipedia. Put aside for a minute the quackery (WHO is obviously not pushing quackery), put aside your or mine opinion, put aside SPA. Ask yourself what is the right "wikipedia attitude". You are more experienced than me in this matter. "Your opinion" will help the newbie to avoid more mistakes here. By the way, I will abandon Naturopathy article for now (but I will be back when you will consider that I am not anymore an "advocate of fringe theories", which you could already simply realize if you would read my edits based on facts and reliable sources, against the blind mainstream). I will even ask you to designate a random article that I could review so that it will not be "my choice" but a neutral choice. I will then make some more "SPA-attitude" on this random article (I cannot parallel too much, I have a focused personnality) and review all its source in the same way that I started to do for Naturopathy. Am I running the risk to be designated a second time as the "uggly advocate SPA" if I do so ? Thanks in advance for your help and advices. It would also be great if you would take over the open questions that I raised in naturopathy talk page, so that it does not get lost. Based on rational, objective, neutral and scientific point of view you will find easy to follow my thinking about these bad sources and/or erroneous rephrasing. Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

General comment about POV-pushers: I don't like them. Bye. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, your answer is not fair and not respectful. We are not here for making friends or for liking or disliking people. My question is worth asking. It is a general question independently of any POV: based on which WP principle can a personnal opinion override a reliable source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartin357 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I respect people, not beliefs. Your beliefs are wrong, and you give a strong impression of having a vested interest. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, I did not express my belief here. I did express my opinion once only. Judging people or their belief based on "impressions" and "patterns", without a fair trial, is not respectful. My main "vested interest" is to apply intellectual honesty to the sources. One of my favorite movie is Minority Report, if you know what I mean. According to your WP:Rouge flag, you are supposed to believe in WP:RS more than anything else. Then please answer to my general question: based on which WP principle can a personnal opinion override a reliable source ? If you like me to grow up from the status of "SPA newbie" to the one of "acceptable editor", it would be fair to provide some help when requested. Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand: inability to adequately separate opinion and fact is endemic in SCAM. Homeopathists all believe that homeopathy is founded on scientific principles, they are wrong of course but they still assert it as fact, especially Dullman. You haven't addressed the core question of what your vested interest is, and I think by now we're entitled to draw the obvious inference from that. Others have told you about the problems with your novel synthesis from primary sources, I don't see any point repeating this as you doubtless won't listen to me either. Go and read cognitive dissonance and see how it applies to you. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG, thanks for this more detailed answer and for your references. I did disclose a lot of private information that should let you figure out who I am and what could be my "vested interest", if any. I am still in the learning curve as a newbie in Wikiepdia. I will be careful not to interpret primary sources anymore. I am not pretending to know what is "wrong" and what is "right". I am always questionning, even the mainstream. I am always looking for reliable sources here. However you sill did not really answer my question about opinion vs. sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartin357 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Crop circles

Guy, please see my notes on the talkpage. You've dropped the ball on this one, I'm afraid; that is, categorically, a copyright violation under our policies. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's fair use. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I do hope we aren't about to go back to going round and round in circles (no pun intended) with this again. The edits that jps made, and which I reverted, did not have consensus on the talk page either for the article or on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. I reverted to my last edit, which appeared (when it was originally made) to reflect the general consensus that had been reached back then. jps has done nothing to try to build consensus on the matter. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that everybody should be proposing edits on Talk first, since it's a mature article. That would solve the entire problem, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy closure

I wanted to let you know that I disagree with your closure of the discussion I initiated on Talk:Homeopathy in which you concluded that the source was "obviously not usable". This does not seem to be an accurate representation of the consensus among editors on this subject. Rather, it seems most editors opposed including it for the time being because no one had read the full text (in my case this was because I did not have a subscription to the relevant journal). Aside from this there was the comment of MastCell who described the meta-analysis as "low-profile" and the journal in which it was published as "extremely obscure" without explaining why he thought this. Everymorning (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed source is useless, that's clear from the debate to date. The last thing we need is yet more stringing out of the "god of the gaps" arguments put forth by homeopaths. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Big Revert

Guy, noticed you reverted my edits from a purely POV standpoint rather than a "what-do-the-sources-and policies-say-standpoint". Just curious, does this source actually say the word "consistently"? I thought it was OR to leave it as it was, but if you say otherwise who am I to actually be reading sources? LesVegas (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your POV edits purely from the standpoint that they advance your POV, which is WP:FRINGE. There is a Talk page attached to the article where you can seek consensus for large scale changes such as you keep trying to make. Do make sure you don't ignore the opinions you don't want to hear. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So whatever you interpret to be Fringe (not what actually is WP:FRINGE) trumps WP:V and WP:OR? LesVegas (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point. One of us perceives their bias as neutrality, and it's not me. I am quite clear about my bias towards empirically verified reality and the scientific view - and I am happy to acknowledge my unreserved contempt for quackery. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, so do you believe that if a source doesn't actually say something disparaging about purported fringe science, it's okay to just make up something disparaging and attribute it to the source anyway? WP:V doesn't actually matter when we're dealing with these subjects, correct? LesVegas (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The issue is with uncritical articles. For example, if an article starts by saying that acupuncture is an effective form of treatment that has been used for thousands of years, and then sets about showing how well it works for X, then the study is crap, because it is using a fallacious appeal to tradition as its justification for human experimentation, and that is, aside from anything else, unethical.

An honest and valuable study would start from the point that acupuncture is controversial, that claimed bases of meridians and qi have no basis in empirically verified fact, but that questions remain about the efficacy of needling for X. It would also set about trying to disprove the hypothesis, because looking for facts to support your beliefs rather than humbly testing them to see if they are correct, is the very definition of pseudoscience.

Some of the studies by the Exeter group did this. Their development of stage-dagger needles was a significant advance in testing of acupuncture, where full blinding is incredibly difficult to achieve. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

But Guy, doesn't MEDRS say, "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions'." If your starting point is "does this study agree with my conclusions about acupuncture?" and not "is this publication peer reviewed or is it on Beall's list?" then you aren't in alignment with the guidelines and you have probably been rejecting good sources for years.

Btw, since you mentioned Exeter and whatever "placebos" they used, you might be interested to read Ernst's latest commentary on the subject. LesVegas (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You are determinedly ignoring the documented issues with studies of acupuncture by Chinese researchers. It's like citing Dean Radin in support of precognition. And yes, I follow Edzard's blog. Your comment is, I am afraid, emblematic of how SCAM proponents approach evidence: it is not his latest commentary by a long chalk, that would be this from 10 August, but you can do a search on acupuncture and find a lot of subsequent commentary, most of it very much not supportive of needling. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, not one of my edits you reverted was a Chinese study. Did you even look to see what you were reverting? We have a self-published source we're giving enormous weight in the lede, we have several statements which their sources don't support, and I made constructive policy-based changes. You might view me as POV pushing but it's not. When Quackguru edited that article, obsessively so, he lied and twisted sources and violated nearly every policy in order to promote his POV. That article needs extensive cleanup and I'm trying to do that. I'm sorry I haven't explained that before. LesVegas (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way Guy, I think you may have misclicked somewhere since your edit restored the POV tag. Sunrise (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I thinkt he PPOV tag may well be justified, there is a current dispute. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good - I didn't think you'd have thought that. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi JzG. I noticed on Jimbo's talk page today you said:

I oppose all paid editing. It creates a disparity of motive between the paid editor and the volunteers who make up most of the Wikipedia community, and it creates a burden on volunteers to check content for neutrality and subtle bias when somebody else is receiving compensation for putting the bias in. Everything about paid editing is anthema to the principles of Wikipedia.

Five months ago you gave me a barnstar regarding my contributions where I was paid that read:

You know what? You deserve this. Not many people can do what you do without causing massive drama. What you do is precisely in line with what I advise every article subject or representative who I encounter on Wikipedia, or in my past life as an email response volunteer. You play a straight bat, and I applaud you for it.

This isn't one of those "aha", "I caught you being a hypocrite" posts. Actually quite a few editors change their opinions over time. This is natural and healthy. In my experience, most editors have views based on whatever their own experiences have been and so paid editors create animosity for themselves as a group by giving the community so many bad experiences with socks, edit-wars, spam, drama, etc. OTOH, every time someone makes a sweeping statement about how bad paid editors are, I wonder (sarcastically) if my paid contributions fall into that sweeping statement, if it would then logically follow that I should revert 40 GAs back to their junk state from before my involvement to remove the paid editing taint.

Anyways, I was just wondering if your views had changed and if so what prompted that. Not trying to be a smart-ass or anything ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing for pay is wrong. Editing articles where you have a conflict of interest (e.g. the person is your customer) requires care, which you do well. That is my view and pretty much always has been. I'm looking here at BeenAroundAWhile, who is creating articles directly, for pay. I don't think you've done that, I think you go via AfC. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww, I see. You were distinguishing between "paid editing" versus "paid engagement".

Yah, I go through Articles for Creation and place a prominent COI disclosure at the top of my submission. However, most of the time when someone asks about creating a new article, they don't qualify for one. Notability is one of the most insurmountable COIs, because there is no way to reconcile the conflict between their desire to have an article and Wikipedia's desire for them not to. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Just so. And I spent endless hours explaining just that on OTRS. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a link or are you referring to a ticket? Yah, just the other day I had to talk to a company that wanted to use my services to update their article, which was written by another paid editor a while back. It was a 35-employee company and most of the sources were mentions or local press. Also, when I started checking sources, they were severely mis-represented to exaggerate their achievements. I told them the only thing I can do is send the page they spent thousands of dollars on to AFD. The crazy thing is, the page was accepted at AFC and the COI authorship was disclosed, but editors just don't know any better. One editor that is pro-paid editing will approve spam and another that is anti, will only settle for an attack page. But such inconsistencies are ubiquitous. Often the company really does want to do the right thing, but they just don't qualify for a page. CorporateM (Talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I did OTRS for years, there were more tickets than I could possibly count. My biggest problem is people who insist that three obvious press releases quoted in the trade press amounts to multiple coverage. It is pathetically easy to place promotion masquerading as editorial in the trade press, I have done it myself in the past. I have made the pages of the Times Educational Supplement, and been interviewed on BBC radio, things that are claimed as evidence of notability for some subjects, and I know bloody well that the thing I was promoting was not notable, the budget was tiny. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair.
Message added 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion requested

Please see the WP:AN section entitled "gotwikipedia.com". It appears that a major player with this SEO site is/was EBY3221, a user whom you recently blocked after he was shown to be a sophisticated spammer. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Thread 8/17

There has been a thread opened at ANI by User:TechnoTalk about your administrative conduct. The thread may be found at WP:ANI#Notification of suspicious behavior by administrator. No comment on the merits, just suspected (correctly) that you had not gotten a notice. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, it's not your admin actions.... honestly, I'm not sure what he is on about. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think he is trying to demonstrate that he has absolutely no clue who his friends are. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

It has long been a source of bewilderment to me that we allow climate change denialists to run riot on Wikipedia...Wikipedia used to be a very small-l liberal project, it has accumulated a very substantial large-C conservative cadre over time...

I'm going to respectfully disagree. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Wikipedia has always been predominantly conservative, with a libertarian bent, reflecting its IT demographic. The notion that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" was a meme spread by conservatives attempting to hide their bias by misplacing blame on those who discovered it. It's an old parlor trick. And this, I believe answers your initial question. Climate change denialists are allowed to muddy up the gears because the conservative, libertarian demographic is by nature distrustful of government (not necessarily a bad thing), and consequentially, skeptical of government-run climate change remediation. This demographic is also deeply connected to the energy and petrochemical industry, which along with the financial sector, traditionally employed more IT people than any other sector. Even worse, it was only until recently that the actual "skeptic" community (Randi et al.) accepted climate change as valid science (Witness Randi's mea culpa several years back). While it's easy to argue that Americans are idiots, I have to say that this kind of ignorance is contagious. I've seen it from the Australians (who are heavily invested in fossil fuels) and in the Nordic countries (remember Bjørn Lomborg?) Think about oil and gas in Norway for just a moment. So we are dealing with a transnational effort to slow down public acceptance of climate science which was settled more than a decade ago. In some respects, Wikipedia mirrors the real world. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am open to being persuaded, I draw my conclusion from the long-term sympathetic treatment of the LGBT community and the fact that creationists got the bum's rush. Climate change has been mainstream in my country for decades: we have only a tiny number of active denialists, most of whom are as mad as a box of frogs (e.g. Monckton). Guy (Help!) 09:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how is Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley doing these days? While I would like to make the case that people in the UK are better educated and more aware of these things because they sent all of their religious nuts to the states to start their own colony of crazies known as the US of A, I find that a bit too convenient to be true. We get a lot of UK tourists in Hawaii, and they have their own quirks and hot button issues. True story: after spending ten years living in the heart of San Francisco, my observation was that the socially liberal, fiscally conservative aesthetic meant that the majority of my LGBT friends were conservatives, but only from a libertarian, West Coast POV. Adam Curtis, in his own unique way, (All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace) picked up on this, as did Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron (The Californian Ideology). Now, fast forward to 2015: millennials in Silicon Valley can barely conceive of a time BFB (before Facebook) or before the never-ending War on Terror, so that the overt conservatism of today's militarized climate has become all but embedded and invisible to those not aware of what it was like before we were always at war with Eastasia. But, forget all of that. Will you admit that engineers, computer science and IT people are as a rule, more conservative than their peers? And that because they are over-represented in the energy sector, they may not be very open to ideas that will impact their profession? Furthermore, will you acknowledge that these people edit Wikipedia and this may explain why climate change has been a controversial topic, above and beyond political orientation? Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you know, that's a strange one. I work in IT, for a corporate. I worked for SunGard (a spinout from Sun Oil) for seven years, in the financial systems software business. Some of the guys were deeply into "posh gambling" but there was a very strong DGAF streak too, I didn't see any evidence that working in the financial industry made people sympathetic to the agenda of the banks, so I don't know if working in the petrochemical industry would make people buy into the agenda of the Koch brothers. I know a few petroleum geologists and one of my friends worked for a Russian oil firm for some time - these people have not identified this as an issue to me, but I will go and ask them.

Aside: I love the Bay Area, spent a month there a few years back on a training course and went up into the mountains every weekend. Friendly people and the closest to the English attitude to life that I have encountered anywhere outside the UK. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)