Talk:Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

POV mess

This whole article, in my opinion, is a POV mess. I think we need to keep in mind the whole premise of verifiability; that is to say that what matters on Wikipedia is not whether or not something we write is true but whether or not we can provide adequate sources to demonstrate the truthfulness of what we write. There are also questions of tone and weight. I'll be interested in seeing whether one of the custodians might yet be able to bring it up to standard. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two links at the bottom of the page, the link to the program itself, and the link to Westernslopeanglers, which is dedicated to ending the program's killings of sportfish. Those links will verify information. It is good something is finally examining the factual truth about this fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.45.12 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the program as a "fiasco" is not NPOV. I have removed most of the uncited statements of opinion, which WP policy explicitly cautions editors to avoid. Your claim that there are individuals who have publicly stated that they feel sportfish are being used as a scapegoat is the only one I left in, because it seems like you should be able to find and cite a source - I sincerely doubt you will find any citable sources for the other removed statements, which could be interpreted as inflammatory. Assuming that you resume your attempts to edit this article in the future, PLEASE review this and other official WP policies, especially WP:NOT, and WP:RS, and the sub-category of NPOV policy regarding undue weight. Your prior edits violated all of these policies, and until and unless you understand them and comply with them in your editing, you can expect that other editors will remove your edits, and be fully justified in doing so. There is no reason that both sides of a controversy cannot be represented in Wikipedia, and no one is telling you that you are not free to represent the "con" side to the government's "pro" - but you MUST give sourced and verifiable statements, preferrably attributed to authoritative sources. Simply saying things like "sport fishermen are negatively impacted by this program" is unacceptable until and unless you can point to WHO said this, and tell us WHERE they said it. Having a "link to Westernslopeanglers" is similarly not acceptable, because (1) they do not fit the stated criteria for a reliable source, and (2) it is a commercial website, and including a link here is self-promotion, also a policy violation. Again, neither I nor any other editor is here to debate with you, the point is that you cannot simply insert statements without giving a verifiable source FOR them - especially if there is a controversy! Dyanega (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice re-write. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article will be rewritten once we the people can get all the reliable sources cited. The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program is not a reliable source because of their bias, data manipulation, and political ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.16.5 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2007(UTC)

Such a comment does not suggest to me that you intend to act as an objective editor, and - if that is the case - you will find that your attempts to insert "political ideologies" into Wikipedia will not be welcomed. I gave you advice above, and I was quite serious about it. You NEED to read WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS, understand those policies, and abide BY them in order to contribute to Wikipedia. Given the tone of your comment, I suggest you pay close attention to the following policy (quoted from WP:SOAP):

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

and, in case you were hoping to "expose" things regarding "bias and data manipulation" that "we the people" need to know, then this is not the place to do it, whether you're right or not. Consider the following statement from WP:FRINGE:

Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.

and the following section from WP:UNDUE:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

In other words, if YOUR purpose here is to attempt to discredit other individuals or institutions, you will be required to supply quotes from reliable sources that have THEMSELVES made public comments attempting to discredit those individuals or institutions. Note that blogs, web newsletters, online forums and such are NOT considered reliable sources, and will almost certainly not be accepted. Wikipedia is not the place for you to vent your personal gripes, or attempt to promote your personal beliefs regarding "bias, data manipulation, and political ideologies". Advocacy is not welcome here, so I would caution you not even to attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; you will find that there are more than enough objective editors and administrators here that understand the policies I cited above, and will see to it that they are enforced. This article went unnoticed for quite some time, but that is no longer the case. Last and most importantly, if you find that you are unable or unwilling to abide by policy and contribute here, and consider it an injustice, it has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong, or whether anyone else is right or wrong. The quote above sums it up: some information does not belong in Wikipedia "regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". If you can learn the rules and honor them, then - and ONLY then - you will be free to contribute. Just because the popular perception of Wikipedia is that anyone can come here and write anything they want does not mean that is how it actually works. Dyanega (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Finally, sources

Someone finally edited in actual sources for the criticism of the project. Thanks. I've reworked the wording some. Copy-edited. Reworded passages lifted straight from The Denver Post. Fixed footnotes.

One of my edit summaries - about the skill with which the footnotes were first posted - was intemperate. It was late and I was frustrated. I apologize.

What do you all think of the edits? David in DC (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, though it certainly doesn't amount to much, compared to the way it was being portrayed by the Western Slope Angler editor as "significant public opposition". Looking over the reports and the quotes (by following links and leads), it looks like some sport fishermen are unwilling (or unable) to distinguish between "stopping the decline" of native fish as opposed to "visible recovery". Just because the native species aren't recovering well in areas where sportfish have been removed doesn't mean that their removal has not been beneficial. All it means is that simply removing the predators isn't enough to allow recovery, given that the native species are still competing with other non-native fish, and to anyone who understands ecology, the end result should come as no surprise (i.e., if you don't remove ALL of the non-native species, then you don't see much recovery). Dyanega (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that there are sources, they somehow aren't good enough. Should be more than enough proof that the program is controversial and there is widespread opposition among at least some circles. What are you guys, liberal enviro koolaid drinkers? Articles such as that in the Denver Compost SHOW the controversy. Saying it is controversial isn't POV BECAUSE THERE IS A SOURCE TO SHOW IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.149.113 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence in that source of "widespread" opposition. "Widespread" would mean that multiple individuals and entities can be quoted as opposing the program, as a matter of public record. So, where is this public record? You have supplied us with one quote from one person, Charlie Meyers, and you represent one organization: Western Slope Anglers. That doesn't make it a controversy, any more than the existence of the Flat Earth Society is proof that there is a controversy regarding whether the Earth is flat or not. It's simple: as far as anyone such as myself can see, there isn't any evidence that anyone in the entire region (outside of Western Slope Anglers and Charlie Meyers) is even aware that the UCREFRP exists, let alone worries about it, or thinks it's a controversial program. That means that all there is evidence for is that your opinion is a minority opinion, and WP policy is not to give minority opinions any more space here than they occupy in the primary sources, adn certainly not to allow their adherents to use words like "controversy" without demonstrating it exists. SO, once again, if you can provide evidence that this really IS controversial, i.e., that there are numerous or prominent people or organizations opposed to the UCREFRP, as opposed to a tiny and obscure minority, then it can be included in the article. But just because you and your organization don't like it doesn't mean you can come here to Wikipedia to promote your agenda, or accuse other editors of having an agenda. What "us guys" happen to be is people who don't like it when other people try to abuse Wikipedia for their personal ends. I never heard about the UCREFRP before I came across your POV edits to this article, and honestly don't really give a dang about the UCREFRP one way or the other. We're editing the article because we support Wikipedia policy, which YOU are violating - and NOT because we care about the subject matter. I'm sure you'd prefer to think of yourself as being the target of "liberal enviro koolaid drinkers", but you'd be absolutely dead wrong. It's not your opinion we're disagreeing with, it's the way you are attempting to portray your opinion, and insert your opinion here - because Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a place for editors to promote their opinions, only to quote the opinions of others. Dyanega (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article showing that the program is controversial. A former wildlife commissioner even called the program "a boondoggle." http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradoWater/2006/08/16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.178.156 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this. (1) It is two years old. (2) It even starts out "A handful of anglers from western Colorado". (2) It is a blog, supposedly quoting a newspaper article which is - as far as I can see - nowhere in the newspaper's archives. (3) The "Colorado Sportsmen Wildlife Fund, Inc." is a very, very small organization. (4) The only thing in there that comes across as supporting your claim is the quote from Rick Enstrom - however, the report is quite specific: "who long has been a outspoken critic of the sportfish removal aspects of the recovery program" - juxtaposed with the unsupported implication that he thinks the entire program is flawed, not just the fish removal part. Also, backtracking that, Rick Enstrom is a Commissioner appointed specifically to act on behalf of sport fishermen, and that fact is one that should not be overlooked - he is not an unbiased source, so his affiliation has to be stated if he is to be quoted. Ordinarily, the lack of a clearly archived reliable source would be a problem (blogs are not considered reliable sources), but acting on the assumption that this WAS actually published by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel back in 2006, then a statement along these lines can certainly be included. I'll compose something in a few minutes after I can check a few more links and such. Also, I can't find anything more recent than Meyers' piece, nor anything to substantiate Meyers' use of the phrase "widespread Western Slope protest". The problem is that his article is more of an opinion piece than actual reporting, which makes it difficult to give quotes in a clear context. Dyanega (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is more evidence the program is controversial and that widespread protest exists:

http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2005/jul/15/locals_get_amped/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.149.185 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Colorado Sportsman's wildlife fund a small group is very ignorant. There are thousands of members. In fact, WesternSlopeAnglers itself has well over 1000 members. The reason the article from the Daily Senile said "handful" is because the author of the article, Dave Buchanan, is an extremely liberal environmentalist reporter who is in the corner of the recovery program and pretty much despises sportsmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.149.185 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If Rick Enstrom and Charlie Meyers aren't unbiased sources, how in the HELL can you consider the USFWS page on the recovery program a valid source? All you wanted was proof that opinions exist that view the program as controversial. I have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.149.185 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All you've literally shown is that there were about 300 people who signed a petition back in 2006, but if that's the scale of the opposition to the program, and if the only gripe is about the sportfish removal, then that's still not much evidence of a controversy. As for WSA's membership, do they all unanimously oppose the UCREFRP, or do they only oppose the removal of sportfish, and where are the newspaper articles that spell this out? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that without some reliable source to back your statements up, they can't be used as the basis for editing this article. Besides, you can run down a list of hundreds of things that upset groups of hundreds, maybe even thousands of people, and are still NOT listed in Wikipedia as "controversies". You're talking about something that is just barely over the threshold of Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines; this issue has evidently NEVER appeared in the national press. It's something small-scale, limited to a very localized region in Colorado, and of very little more than local interest or concern. I am not saying that your concerns aren't legitimate - for all I know, the program might BE a failure - what I am pointing out is that Wikipedia is not the place for you and your organization to be trying to fight this program, and unless there are unbiased third parties saying this program is a failure, you're not going to find Wikipedia receptive to edits trying to put forth that point of view. The converse is also true. You'll notice that the article does not say that the program is good, or that it has been successful. You'll notice that the only information from the USFWS page that is included here is of a descriptive nature. For some reason, you're assuming that only your sources are being treated as biased, and that's not the case; the USFWS is ALSO biased, so (1) it is stated up front that the information comes from the USFWS , and (2) nothing that includes material that could be interpreted as propaganda, bias, or value judgments is quoted here. There are no opinions being presented, because no one here is treating the USFWS source as unbiased. If Rick Enstrom and Charlie Meyers weren't valid sources, their statements wouldn't have incorporated into the article. But "valid" and "unbiased" aren't the same thing. What the article needs is an outside analysis from an unbiased third-party source. The fact that there is no such analysis to date is one reason that this article is barely notable: the only people talking are the government people, and the fishermen, no one else seems to be paying any attention and commenting on it. Dyanega (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

spelling a few things out

Just to make sure that these points are explicit, here's some excerpted text from the notability guidelines which should explain some of the problems here:

---

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
• "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

---

So, (1) there is not really much significant coverage, since the sources do not "address the subject directly in detail," (they primarily address the practice of fish removal, and not the program itself) (2) the sources might be reliable, but they aren't "secondary sources covering the subject" - all of the sources are primary: the USFWS on one hand, and people who personally criticize the USFWS on the other hand. The attention a subject has received by the world at large in this case is virtually zero. (3) the number and nature of reliable sources is extremely small, and mostly seem to refer to things that happened in 2006. (4) none of the sources are independent of the subject (again, either the USWFS itself, or people criticizing them). Based on these criteria, only the existence of the program itself is genuinely notable (there are tons of government documents regarding it), but not much else, including the "controversy" surrounding it. Please, read the guidelines, and recognize that they are not directed at you, personally - they apply to anyone and everyone who tries to contribute to Wikipedia. No one gets sympathy by pleading that their case is exceptional. Dyanega (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)