Talk:Jay Westerveld

Spelling

Can anyone find a source with a definitive spelling for this man's name? I assume he only spells it one way, though the press seem to have a tough time with it, judging by the linked articles. YrPolishUncle (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for footnote spam

A link to a business in Arizona selling custom homes was sneaked in to the footnotes on his essay where he coined the term "Greenwashing". I have removed the spam. The history will show it -- I'm not going to repeat it here. Shame on Sereno Canyon Scottsdale custom homes. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

profession after snowboarding career

Discussion hatted due to amazingly excessive socking The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been an ongoing debate over the career title of "Biologist" - with one side attempting to insert multiple synonyms for the word "amateur", while the other side wants to label it a "Biology career" instead of a "Biology avocation". So, I went through all the linked sources. Of those, I found one which labels Westerveld as a "field biologist", while all other sources call him either an "environmental activist" or an "environmentalist". All the sources appear to support these terms as his career.

Given the sources, there's no support for variations on the term "amateur"; but at the same time, the sources most strongly support labelling hist post-snowboarding career as an "Environmentalism career". If we do mention biologist within that section, it should be classified as a field biologist in order to tie out to the source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I question the voracity of self tiltled professions published in local newspapers as verification of one being a accredited paid professional. If Mr Westerveld can show his degrees and show he makes a living as a Biologist then he satisfies the criteria of being a Professional and not a passionate amateur. I think a selt taught Enviromental Activist is a more accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProBiota (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What matters is what is published in third-party reliable sources - of which newspapers do qualify. See WP:RS. Personal interpretation, such as what you are proposing, is considered original research, and not acceptable for overriding statements in reliable sources. See WP:NOR. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Voracity--nice. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Westerveld indeed works as a professional biologist. His job title at the Natural History council and his contract field work for the state of New York and the US Fish & Wildlife service, etc. indicate this. Remember the title of biologist does not require any higher schooling; this is not to presuppose that Jay does not have this schooling, but to clarify the definition. He is very active on social media and his graduate and undergraduate colleagues, professors, photos, etc. support higher education. I question the veracity of questioning any non-gastronomic subject's "voracity" whether or not they are "self-tiltled." Even a cursory review of revisions of this page reflect a very angry effort to discredit this living person. Merely googling Westerveld and Alan Stenberg, anyone can see that Jay's research and later advocacy concerning a motel later owned by Mr. Stenberg cost Mr. Stenberg considerable revenue as a result of the threatened amphibians that Jay studied there. I also propose that Wikipedia users "Probiota", "Alan Stenberg", "Herr Peter Klein", "Bog Turtle", etc., ad nauseum, are sock puppet sobriquets of one person bent on discrediting this renowned biologist who gave our language the word "Greenwash". Incidentally, I actually know Jay Westerveld, He was my Ski Instructor in Lake Tahoe in 2011 right after I returned to the US. Since meeting Jay in 2011 I harbor no doubts about his career in biology. He has shared photos with me taken as recently as last October of his work instructing at a college and his lectures at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The man is credited with discovering entire populations of rare animals in America. If this does not a biologist make, then what does? This newspaper headline refers to him as a "biologist": http://m.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091011/COMM/910110320/-1/NEWS&template=wapart This medical publication also identifies Jay as a biologist: http://www.todayschiropractic.com/Archive/AprilMay2012/Greenwashing.aspx This special issue of "orange magazine" also refers to Jay as a biologist: http://orangecountyweb.org/GCC/documents/Orangemag.jpg Semperfly (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a lecture he recently gave at the American Museum of Natural History. It is the last entry on the linked page: http://www.ocpostsentinel.com/cgi-bin/get_story.cgi?control=2135 and a link to another lecture he gave at another museum: http://onhudson.typepad.com/onhudsoncom/2009/09/hudson-highlands-nature-museum-evening-speaker-series.html here is a link to a lecture Jay gave at the State University of New York. I don't believe that "environmental activists" are invited to lecture on biological subjects at universities: http://www.sunyorange.edu/news/articles/pr2009-001.shtml This conference does not sound like one that would invite an "environmental activist" to lecture at: http://www.northeastparc.org/meetings/NEPARC2012_Agenda.pdf Due apologies for the links. The "voracity" of the attacks against Jay from these sock puppets need to be answered. By wikipedia's own definition,Biologist, "Many jobs in biology as a field require an academic degree..." Note the use of "Many", not "all". Again, this is not to say that jay does not have a degree. I am not sure why Alan Stenberg and his various alter-egos feel that Jay does not have a degree. this is a curious point in itself, as are the unsigned posts at the bottom of this page directed at Jay. "prefession", "enviromental" also nice spellings. reading the posts on the bottom of this talk page help to clear up exactly who "Probiota" and "Alan Stenberg" et al. actually are. Semperfly (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful with comments about other users; focus on the content. That said, if you do believe there is evidence to support claims of sockpuppetry, you can create a request for an investigation at WP:SPI. To have the investigation acted upon, be certain to read to "Important Notes" section on that page before creating the SPI request.

Thanks for finding the links. The articles at Recordonline and Orangecounty web both specifically identify him as a field biologist, while the todayschiropractic link identifies him as a biologist. The other links don't specifically identify a title/profession, so any interpretation or assumptions on our part would be original research, so aren't usable for identifying a profession (although they may be useful for other points in the article).

Given these additional sources, I could support labeling the section as a Biology Career, with clarification within the section that he is a field biologist (so as to tie to the sources). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A Biologist is indeed a prefession that requires certification and a degree. Jay is not one of them. There is nothing wrong with being a passionate Enviromental Activist but there is no need to misrepresent yourself Jay. Quick Facts: Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists 2010 Median Pay $57,430 per year $27.61 per hour Entry- Level Education - Bachelor’s degree http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/zoologists-and-wildlife-biologists.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProBiota (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

" Merely googling Westerveld and Alan Stenberg, anyone can see that Jay's research and later advocacy concerning a motel later owned by Mr. Stenberg cost Mr. Stenberg considerable revenue as a result of the threatened amphibians that Jay studied there." The world renouned luxury resort was cost time and money by claims of Engangered Frogs that were not even on the property. The Glenemere Mansion is thriving. The Frogs decline may be attributable to a loss of food source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProBiota (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, what matters are what is in reliable sources - using personal belief or personal preference to re-interpret those sources is original research, and does not trump what the sources actually state. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Using personal belief is precisely what "Probiota/Alan Stenberg" is doing in maintaining that Jay lacks a degree. As far as "field biologist" v "biologist", one is still a subcategory of the other; that is, a field biologist, by definition, is a biologist. Identifying a baseball player as a "pitcher" or as a "first baseman" does not preclude the fact that these position players are baseball players. Concision does not eliminate the broader definition. In the case of field biologist or, for example, marine biologist, both are still biologists- these are even stronger cases than baseball position players, as the term biologist is merely described by the area of specialty. Semperfly (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above; given the additional sources you linked, I could support labeling the section as a Biology Career, with clarification within the section that he is a field biologist (so as to tie to the sources).

The section header would use the broader term, while the body of text within that section can clarify the specific subcategory within the profession. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Barek: Thank you for the clarification. Your sentence, above "... The other links don't specifically identify a title/profession, so any interpretation or assumptions on our part would be original research, so aren't usable for identifying a profession (although they may be useful for other points in the article)." ... ignores (perhaps unintentionally) the fact that "environmental activists" are not invited to speak at scientific conferences, so the inclusion of Jay's lectures at these conferences would appear to support his being more than an "environmental advocate", and indicate peer acceptance among fellow research scientists. In this link http://nytts.org/centralpark/index.html we see Jay leading the scientific organization "New York Turtle and Tortoise Society" on an "American Museum of Natural History" sanctioned educational research survey of New York's Central Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfly (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In any event, Alan Stenberg & probiota's persistent allusions to the Glenmere mansion (which this page indicates may have been negatively impacted by Jay's research ) would indicate a singular purpose in "their" restless efforts to discredit this clearly renowned biologist. I know Jay personally and consider him a friend, if only a recent one. This is why I have sought to clarify this page. What could the intentions of those discrediting his reputation be? Semperfly (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Any interpretation of what it means by inviting him is personal synthesis of the data, unless the conference in question specifically states that they only invite lecturers from the specific profession (in which case, that statement also needs to be sourced). If the sources do not state he is a biologist (nor state any other profession), then those sources are not usable for the purpose of sourcing his career information (although may be of value elsewhere in the article).

As to other editors - please do not speculate on motivations of others on article talk page. It disrupts the collaborative exchange of ideas. As stated at WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, WP:SPI can be used. Remember that having different opinions is not the same as being a vandal - although when someone carries their personal view or bias to an extreme, it can sometimes result in vandalism. If someone is repeatedly vandalising, that person can be reported to WP:ANI or WP:ANV - although such reporting should not be used abusively, as both parties involved get looked at in such reports, and a boomerang effect is not uncommon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. My point stands on its own merit. Semperfly (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well Jay, you do not seem to be able to produce a degree in anything Biological nor have you shown how you make an actual living as a "Biologist". Therefore one can only conclude that you are not a Professional Biologist. The rest is superfluous fluff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Stenberg (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan, as I've pointed out before - what matters is what is published in third-party reliable sources; and multiple third-party reliable sources support stating he is a biologist. Please see WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." Your argument hinges on a personal belief that it's not true, which is original research and is in direct contradiction of three verifiable third-party sources that were linked above. An argument that you just don't like it is not grounds for ignoring third-party sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan Stenberg: I am not sure why you are speaking to "Jay" on this page. I am not Jay and I doubt that Barek is Jay. Unlike you I know Jay. I know that he would not waste all day stalking a Wikipedia page. He is probably out snowboarding at home in in Lake Tahoe unaware and uncaring of any of this. You need to move on. When this page is unlocked again you will be editing away while Jay Westerveld is enjoying life in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Surely you find something that needs polishing in your evidently very quiet motel. Barek: What is to stop the serial editing again once this page is unlocked? Semperfly (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The man is credited with discovering entire populations of rare animals in America. If this does not a biologist make, then what does?" Answer - a degree and a paycheck. It seems that there will be no "Biological" degree forthcoming nor any proof of any living made from any income as a "Biology professional" Unless that is offered up, Jay will remain a just a amateur Environmental Activist. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Drop on by your old shack. You might like the magnificent grandeur that it has been restored to and bringing more revenue and profitability that it ever has in it's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Stenberg (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Could one of the administrators here (Barek, maybe?) please just create an Alan Stenberg Wiki page? Surely, Mr. Stenberg's achievements are worthy of his own Wikipedia page. Semperfly (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Most people do not need a Wiki page to feel complete. Envy, that is rich. An Entrepreneur that built an Award winning Luxury resort that brought international tourist dollars, local jobs, and tax revenues to the Hudson Valley vs an unemployed amateur environmental activist. Alan Stenberg (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Good for you, that way you get to spend quality time with your master. ProBiota (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy solstice. The mayan apocalypse never came. Let's all just agree to get along. Semperfly (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK let's meet for a beer. Name the place and time. Alan Stenberg (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)--Alan Stenberg (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Good for him, he plays in the snow, but he is not making a living as professional trained Biologist. At least Mr Stenberg is making a living all the while providing jobs and taxes to the Hudson Valley. ProBiota (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Basta!

Enough with this nonsense. Next editor to make a personal attack, a sneer, an accusation of sock puppetry earns themselves a 31-hr block, for starters. If anyone thinks someone is a sock, they should take the time to study how to make a proper claim at WP:SPI: put up or shut up. The article is still protected, but I am going to change that to "Pending changes", which means that any edit will have to be accepted by a licensed Reviewer. I will also post a note on the BLP noticeboard to get some uninvolved editors to look at this article, which in its current state is certainly on the fluffy side. Finally, this "biologist" business should, at some point, probably be properly resolved--either by the input of experienced editors who are not involved with the subject or by an Request for Comment. Any of you may start that--on the condition that you do so succinctly and courteously. The rules of engagement I am dictating will apply to that RfC also.

"Dictating"--yes, by the power vested in me I can do that, to stop this ridiculous bickering. Let it be clear that I have no interest in this person, his work, his presumed work, his snowboarding career, his father's snowboarding career, his pension plan, his detractors, his supporters, the term "Greenwashing", and I am not a paid employee of the State of California or Antarctica. I am only interested (besides in world peace, of course) in the state of this article, which right now is a bit of an embarrassment for an encyclopedic project. Please y'all grow up and talk this out civilly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Semperfly (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Who cares Alan Stenberg (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear editors...

Just to make things clear, Wikipedia articles are not for advertising holiday resorts. They're also not for fluffing up someone's resume. They're not for making personal attacks, they're not for tarnishing someone's reputation. Whatever information is inserted into the biography of a living person (see WP:BLP) needs to be neutrally written and supported by reliable sources. But I think this is nothing new. I have started two sock puppet investigations so a CheckUser can figure out if any socking is going on. No further accusations, therefore, will be necessary: it's out of all of our hands right now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Biologist

One editor is removing "biologist" from Jay Westerveld's career work despite verifiable sources listed above stating that Jay Westerveld is a biologist. Editor JFHJr seems to be removing credible, verifiable sources at an alarming rate. Legunit (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

:If a biology degree and a paycheck from a biology job are shown to be valid, the Mr Westerveld can correctly be called a Biologist. All research shows him to be environmental activist. Alan Stenberg (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a misstatement; see WP:IRS. Reliable sources calling the subject a biologist would suffice, as was previously explained. I'm not against calling him a biologist. Even when it's published by a reliable source, it's best when the basis or ultimate source of the claim is clear. But paychecks and the like are neither required nor particularly acceptable. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability questions, merger proposal

Does this subject actually pass general or basic biographical notability guidelines? If anyone can find anything approaching significant biographical coverage, that would be great. So far, I'm not finding any coverage substantially about Jay Westerveld. His speaking at universities certainly doesn't begin to approach WP:ACADEMIC, and almost no third party seems to care (the university is not a third party). So I see lots of news coverage where the subject is talking, in his capacity as a group representative, always about an environmental issue; the environmental issue seems to be the actual topic of coverage. Westerveld gets slightly better coverage when it comes to having coined "Greenwashing." That term seems to be notable, so I'm thinking this article should be redirected to Greenwashing. Thoughts anyone? Here are some links for thought:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good call administrators. You did rock solid research and made the informed decision about Mr Westerveld's credentials. Herr Peter Klein (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, and I haven't made any decisions about anyone's credentials. I haven't noticed any admin who has. What I've tried to do is limit content to what's published in reliable, verifiable sources. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've proposed merger at Talk:Greenwashing/Archives/2012#Merger proposal for the reasons above. In short, the only topic covered by multiple reliable sources in regards to this subject coincide with Greenwashing. Local news where the Westerveld is not the actual topic of coverage should be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• There were numerous references citing the subjects many presentations on biological topics. Westerveld is clearly credited with discovering entire new populations of rare animals, many of which are of greater scientific import than one neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfly (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are almost no third party reliable sources which discuss his "discoveries." The sources that do mention this are careful to state the claims are unconfirmed. Furthermore, the subject is not covered for having been a former pro snowboarder. Let's be clear: that term was used only once, in passing, in local news covering environmental issues. The one article you've replaced is one I removed for having used Wikipedia as a source. Did you even read the article? I'm removing it based on the source alone, but equally applicable might be WP:FART: the fact is insignificant according to reliable coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• The "numerous references" you refer to probably included the self-publications by related parties promoting a future event, or links to pirated and copyrighted newscasts on youtube, which I removed. Such press announcements regarding upcoming events cannot be used to claim 1) that the event even actually occurred, nor 2) any significance of the accomplishment, since the host of presentations necessarily has an interest in puffing and promoting the presentation. JFHJr (㊟) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Does this person actually have any credible sources for his "discoveries"? All we seem to see here are links to letters to the editor. Are we really allowing this dribble on Wikipedia? WVHS84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WVHS84 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PC2

To me, it seems as though this page is using PC2, even though it is labeled as PC1? Is this correct? §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Municipal historian?

A claim is being made that the subject should have the title of "Municipal historian" added as an oocupation. The problem is that a third-party reliable source is needed that supports the claim. So far, the only provided reference is from http://www.barntowire.com/smf/index.php?topic=30278.0 ... which is a posting on a discussion blog, which fails to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source as described at WP:RS. The posting also appears to be a copy/paste copyvio of a different source - if the original source can be found, that might meet the WP:RS requirements, depending upon the source. However, even then, the text in the material identifies him as "president of the Sugar Loaf Historical Society" (not the same as a municipal historian). So it doesn't support the text being added to the article here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

The "Occupation" field was previously discussed in the above hatted thread "profession after snowboarding career" in Dec 2012, there was consensus for listing "Field Biologist and Activist" based upon stated occupation in third party reliable sources. In fact, this description was unanimous among the only non-sockpuppet participants in that prior discussion.

The field was changed again today to state "Field Researcher and Activist" with the edit summary "Mr Westerveld is not an accredited Biologist".

As brought up in the prior discussion in which I had reviewed all the linked references in the article, I found one which labels Westerveld as a "field biologist", while all other sources call him either an "environmental activist" or an "environmentalist". All the sources appear to support these terms as his career. Given the statement of the third party sources, and the lack of evidence for any change in community concensus, I have reverted the change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Westerveld. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705195538/http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece to http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404021943/http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/79976.html to http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/79976.html

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: 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) 04:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)