Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Art Robinson

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

Unless someone cares to expand this a bit - list of pubs, why he matters - I'm putting it onto VFD. William M. Connolley 19:39:41, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

Hmm, well, I seem to have answered my own question... Would still be interesting to know if he has any pubs though.

There are many pubs, and I have added the most important one, which references the others on the topic of protein deamidation.

Hi, there seems to be quite a bit of information about this subject at http://www.independentscientist.com/. Unless there is some objection, I'll upload it. I came here after reading that article. Wikipedia should be enhanced with most or all of that information. Sky 10:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Sky[reply]

  • deamidation.

Has this book ever been referred to in the scientific literature, or reviewed, or noticed by anyone other than the authors. If not, I dont think the paragraph about it can stand. DGG 03:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the article up to date, but for some reason the references don't display correctly. I'm sure it's my mistake but I don't know what I did wrong. Sky Sky 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit and Pauling

[edit]

I'm not taking sides here - the information is one sided and not accurate. I know Robinson is disliked by the left, but to rewrite history is not good for Wikipedia. Scientific data WAS destroyed. Science is messy and full of egos and the like, but here we have a very twisted story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have fixed the refs

[edit]

adding one or two, but I have a question: the article says the book was peer-reviewed--is there any data for this--it seems to have been privately published. I've removed "peer-reviewed" DGG (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Info and Basic Standards

[edit]

This man appears to be a crank who self-publishes all of his writings and created a dubious research "institute" to promulgate a political agenda. Why does the article not either clearly state this or at least clarify his bona fides? As is, it is unclear why he is article-worthy in the first place. The article does not explain what "deamidation" is, let alone why the publication about it is significant. Most glaring omission: He's running for Congress now. 76.118.229.114 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea well, he's running for Congress just now as you've noted. Very bad things are said about very nice people in such circumstances. Some words even worse than "crank." Deleting this article before the election would be most unseemly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.196.150 (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any of you new here, the basic Wikipedia policy for whether a subject is worthy of an article is WP:N, which is actually a collection of policies applicable in different circumstances. In terms of that policy, it doesn't really matter if the person is a crank or not, it just matters how often they're discussed in secondary, reliable sources, etc. Of course, just because an article can be written about someone doesn't mean you can say just anything, some other important policies are WP:BLP and WP:RS. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Robinson would meet the inclusion (WP:N) requirements (barely, simply being a candidate for office is generally not sufficient, but other factors would apply, most particularly external coverage of the Robinson-Pauling lawsuits). but there are potentially controversial statements in the article that need more reliable secondary sources, the article still needs quite a bit of work in its present form. If you believe that this article (or any other) doesn't meet the notability requirements (and can't), then you can nominate it for deletion, you can find information on that process here: WP:AFD --j⚛e deckertalk 05:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "unique" from Robinson's history (not encyclopedic). Also needs a source for the supposed quotation of Pauling, because the American Spectator article also offers the quote with no sources. In fact, the whole American Spectator article seems to use Robinson as the only source for a definitely not neutral article. Just like this one. Mikhailtheplumber

6/22/2012: Just for the record, Art Robinson is once again running for Congress. I find that a lot of this article reads like his campaign literature. Any comments??? Tonybaldacci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Public Education

[edit]

I hate to be like a dog with a bone in my teeth on this, but... On his (commercial) web site he advises everyone to pull their children out of public school, without exception. This web site is current, so we presume he still holds this view. While admittedly he has not raised this as an issue, it does seem to represent his views correctly. Further it seems to be an important part of this fellow's political views. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important view, but it doesn't correspond to a single policy choice. A person who advises parents to take their own children out of public school does not necessarily support abolishing public schools. He may support drastically reforming schools instead. According to his website, Dr. Robinson supports reform: moving schools from union and governmental control to local control. This policy choice, not his advice to parents, is the point that is relevant to his candidacy. — Eru·tuon 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that in a biographic entry we ought to include such a remarkable statement. Perhaps if it (and some other stuff) does not belong in a section on politics a new section of some sort is needed? It just seems too shocking to not include somehow. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies on living persons require reliable, published sources. This helps to ensure that the content of an article is both noteworthy and free of synthesis/OR problems. Including information directly from The Robinson Self-Teaching Curriculum violates Wikipedia rules and is a huge problem. Incidentally, your initial statement that, "On his (commercial) web site he advises everyone to pull their children out of public school, without exception" is misleading. That statement exists under a section titled "Steps to an optimum self-teaching home school," from which we could deduce that he is simply enumerating what he takes to be but one step to an 'optimum self-teaching home school'. But this is only an incidental issue - using secondary and tertiary sources helps to avoid unhelpful discussions such as this one. 71.231.120.183 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my discussuion is unhelpful. Thank you for saying I wrote, "On his (commercial) web site he advises everyone to pull their children out of public school, without exception." I was not aware of that. I did no such thing. Robinson did say is, " I urge every parent to:

a) Remove your child or children from their group school - public or private.

b) Set aside a room in your home with a large desk for each child.

c) Remove all television sets from your home.

d) Remove all sugar and honey from the children's diet ..."

Why you claimed I added the words "without exception" is beyond me. While it is critial that the biographies of living people be factually correct, it is not necessary to remove statements that are true and cited properly. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked by Paul to comment here. Let's avoid the "umhelpful discussion" characterization - this is quite mild by WP standards, and I see valid points on both sides. The article's subject is a person who happens to be a candidate. No objective biography can wall off material unrelated to the person's campaign, as one of 71's edit summaries seems to imply. NOR does not rule out the use of the candidate's company's web presence, as long as it is properly cited and placed in appropriate context - take a look at the articles on LaRouche, which cite his organization's website. It would be best to use a secondary source that discusses the website, but reference to the website is not a "huge problem" - it just requires due care. To ignore Robinson's voluminous website would be a serious omission and would compromise the neutrality of the article. Are there any secondary sources that discuss the Robinson curriculum? They would be the preferred citation, with supporting material from Robinson, rather than just starting with Robinson. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if you did not write that, but I had simply quoted what was ascribed to User:PaulinSaudi at 15:42, 12 October 2010. The unhelpful discussion I was referring to is this one we are having right now - I am part of it. I consider these discussions unhelpful because we are quibbling over content that does not need to be quibbled over, as there are rules in place to help preempt these sorts of discussions. An external link to The Robinson Self-Teaching Curriculum is appropriate. However, an arbitrary addition of primary material is not. One of the points of requiring secondary, published sourcing is so that there is a benchmark for what merits inclusion - the idea being that trivial information will not be published, and important information will. If we are to simply abstract from the primary source, what exactly gets included? The example above does not even finish point "d)," nor does it include any further points after "d)," nor does it provide the proper context, the proper context being that these points are under a heading titled "Steps to an optimum self-teaching home school." This interpretation is equivalent to reading a carpentry article titled "Steps to building an optimum shed" and then saying that the supposed owner of the website (in our real example these words cannot really be put in Mr. Robinson's mouth since the Robinson Curriculum is actually a product of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) which published the article urges everyone to buy a sturdy hammer. I am just asking that Wikipedia guidelines be followed. 71.231.120.183 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I an no expert and I am willing to be corrected if need be. The way I see this something like this; 1. The Rachel Maddow interview brought the issue of his distrust of public schools into the public forum. That is a secondary source and indicates the issue is one of public interest. 2. A simple couple of Googles brought me to the Robinson Self-teaching page. This is (obviously) the most primary of all primary sources, the man's own words. In this case it supports interview and confirms things said there are true.
So we seem to have an issue that has been raised in public confirmed by a primary source. That seems to mean it ought to be included. At the very worst we at least be sure we are not misrepresenting the fellow, always a prime concern in biographies of living people.
So I think his comments need to be included. Perhaps not in the politics section, but somewhere.

And, to raise a new topic, why is there such a discussion about his family? I note the mention of the death of his daughter? It is true of course, but seems not really in the public sphere. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your viewing of Rachel Maddow's show is a primary source. It's not as easily verified as reference to a written discussion in some other media concerning the show, and as Shirley Sherrod's case has proven, raw video can easily be removed from its context, so there still needs to be a secondary reference. Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the interview, I didn't see emphasis on Dr. Robinson's view on education. The questions were on the funding for an ad, his view on global warming, and quotes from issues of his newsletter. Education was mentioned in passing, but that's all. — Eru·tuon 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"senior author" of the Oregon Petition

[edit]

I suspect that there is a better (less ambiguous) way to write whatever is attempting to be said here. Is ABR the oldest author? The first? The most credentialed? Does anyone here know and have a source for what's actually being said here? --j⚛e deckertalk 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Congressional race in Oregon

[edit]

The re-edits and bias in this section is unconscionable. The section claims to source Robinson's campaign site, yet the words were then twisted and made the candidates positions seem different than they truly are. It quotes a very old New York Times poll, yet each time I attempt to put up information from the more current CTA/Wilson Research poll, it is deleted. Are we attempting to be objective here, or would we just like to present a semantically and informatively one sided view? --User:Octopusoctariantalk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times page cites a CTA/Wilson poll from October 4-5 as input to their statistical model (as well as a Grove Insight poll from October 11-12). This is the very same poll that you are referring to. So how's this poll more current than (a statistical model partly based on) itself? — Eru·tuon 05:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Octopusoctarian, you have used Robinson's own campaign website to source the information about nomination by third parties. That information needs to be sourced with independent sources; see WP:RS. As for the poll data, at this point a couple of days before the election it is meaningless to post poll data four weeks old. At this point, wait for the election results. We don't need reports of weekly ups and downs in polls; this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Cresix (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of "Controversy" Section

[edit]

The controversy section has been removed. The section lacked a neutral point of view and proper citations for all of the claims made. Until the libelous qualities of this section are adequately addressed (preferably on the talk page), this section should not appear on Wikipedia. Lenschulwitz (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the information that is reliably sourced. You must get consensus here before removing it again, per WP:BRD. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is reliably sourced!
I'll break down every sentence of the Controversy section:
Sentence 1: "He has stated that the abolishment of public schools would improve American education."
There is no citation! It is absolutely absurd to call this reliably sourced. The following Huffington Post article (citation 10) certainly doesn't talk about Art's stance on abolishing public schools.
Sentence 2: "His "self learning" curriculum includes books with blatantly racist themes."
Inaccurate, plus, it lacks any explanation of a "controversy".
If you read the Huffington Post article, it comments on a debate where one party (i.e. Barry Faber and David Kupelian) claims that certain sentences from a book published in the 1800s do not make the curriculum racist while another party (i.e. Terry Krepel, who is also the author of the article) claims that a book in question makes the curriculum racist.
The Wikipedia article conveys only Krepel's side of the debate, which is problematic on its own, but also begs the question: if this sentence is to be included in the "Controversy" section of the Wikipedia article, shouldn't it at least describe a controversy? Furthermore, do other editors really believe that the words "blatantly racist" are neutral? WP:NPV
Finally, this sentence mentions "books", but why is this plural? Reading the Huffington Post article, you'll find this statement: "the offending passage in "By Sheer Pluck" and other similar offending passages that presumably exist in other Henty books?" Presumably exist? Do other editors really think that "presumptions" by online bloggers really meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria?
Sentence 3: "He is a proponent of nuclear power."
No citation! None!
Sentence 4: "He has previously stated that in his scientific opinion the nuclear waste problem should be solved by dispersal of spent nuclear fuel across the great nation of the United States."
Again, No citation! Doesn't exist!
Sentence 5: "It is his "belief" that it will contribute to hormesis, the idea that low levels of radiation will be beneficial to human health."
NO CITATION! The listed citation says nothing of Robinson's "belief" on hormesis and its effect on human health.
This entire section is an absolute violation of Wikipedia's policies on every front. The editor who claimed "I restored the information that is reliably sourced" clearly has not even read this section. I have edited the article, leaving all of the "reliably sourced" information intact. However, in this case, since none of the sentences are reliably sourced (as demonstrated in the above paragraphs), I have removed the section from the article. Lenschulwitz (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

[edit]

Have attempted to cleanup and de-POV the article adding from new story in Bloomberg. Many of the sources used are less than reliable, being right wing or at least conservative ( The Washington Times, The New American, The American Spectator, Newsmax), and the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" website is used as a source for that "institute". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative sources can be quite reliable; the American Spectator is one. They can also be unreliable, the Bircher magazine the New American is one of those. Lumping them together like this is not helpful. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:DDE3:FCC4:32E4:64D3 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OSU

[edit]

Info is incomplete; did his kids graduate, or not?

Also, OSU states they cannot comment without the permission of the students involved. Presumably, they would give it in a case like this. Is/was OSU stalling, or do they disagree with their father, or what is going on? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:DDE3:FCC4:32E4:64D3 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur B. Robinson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur B. Robinson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved! Mahveotm (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Arthur B. Robinson → Art Robinson – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SELFIDENTITY, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Robinson goes by "Art" instead of Arthur on his Congressional campaign website, and news media in both Oregon and around the US use "Art" such as FiveThirtyEight [1], The Oregonian [2], Corvallis Gazette-Times [3] [4], and NPR [5].

"Art Robinson" returns 68k+ google results compared to 17k for "Arthur B. Robinson."

The website of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which Robinson founded, uses "Arthur B. Robinson" in its biography of its founder. The only media outlet that uses that form of name (outside of primary sources) is The New York Times in this 1998 story.

Furthermore, there are no other notable people named "Art Robinson." Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_Robinson&oldid=1211876545"