User talk:Cesar Tort/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Cesar Tort! Thanks for the contribution to the Anti-psychiatry article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Kittie Rose, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi, see here and here to see the image. The image that was on your page was Image:MinesweeperMine.png. It's alright, your not in trouble! It's just easier to avoid using copyrighted images. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Why shouldn't I change the sentence I changed if it has a {{fact}} tag? Gazpacho 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is recent. There was a kind of editorial war on that page. An overzealous editor posted many “fact” tags. You can revert it again but, since there is almost a war, another editor will surely revert your entry. Sorry. Please read the Talk Archives. —Cesar Tort 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your edit (Scientology and psychiatry Talk Page)

At [1], which you read what I had wrote and attempted to modify the page to fulfil what I stated should have been done by the previous editor to whom I was replying. Your edit then did what the editor I replied to should have done. The problem with your having done that, modifying a discussion page by inserting a subheading without contributing to the discussion below the subheading is that the action is not "agreed to by many editors" and is actualy counter to the Wikipedia Guidelines regarding the format of Discussion page disccusions. That wasn't you know, big error, that wasn't, you know, tremendous sin or anything, I'm just pointing out how subsequent reading of an discussion page which, forever after, will include your modification, could confuse and disperse the reader from understanding what is being said on a discussion page and why it is being said. :) Terryeo 23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tidying talk pages

Hi Cesar. I noticed that you have been erasing your talk page. I just thought i would let you know (before an angry Admin does) that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggests one should not remove text that was added to your talk page without good reason. If you don't want certain correspondance on your page, then by all means archive it, but removing comments made in good faith completely is probably not a good idea. Contrary to popular belief, editor's talk pages are no more "theirs" than any other page on Wikipedia and, as such, the same rules apply about removing the valid contribution of others without their permission. However, should you wish to delete this message after reading it, you have my permission! ;) Rockpocket 20:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that policy. By the way, how did you know what I just did in my user talk page? Is there a way to click on something and automatically revert any previous deletion? I copied and pasted my deletions but wonder if there is a faster way. —Cesar Tort 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you click on the history tab for your talk page you will see a list of all previous versions. It appears the last version that contained all of the correspondance was on 15:51, 5 April 2006. If you click on that date you can view the old version of your talk page. You then simply have to click on the "edit this page" tab. You will notice there is a warning that "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed.". Simply "save page" without making any changes and this version will now become the latest version. There are even easier ways of doing this using various Wikipedia:Tools, but you need to install the code first. By the way, the reason i knew you had deleted was because i clicked on the (last) link in the edit history - that shows the difference in the last edit made. Hope that helps. Rockpocket 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cesar, you can also keep track of what's happening on all the WP pages by going to the page for Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol — to help prevent vandalism. This is the place to go if you are interested in keeping spam out of the Wikipedia or in maintaining a professional level of writing in the articles. You probably have used the "My Watchlist" link at the top of your page. Every time you make a change to any page, it automatically gets placed on your watchlist. You can edit that list to eliminate articles that you do not have a continuing interest in monitoring. I only recently regiseterd as a user on the WP. Prior to that I made small edits to remove spam and correct grammar. But I thought that it would be best to have a Log-in name once I decided I wanted to make more substantive contributions. Ande B 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to add an article to this project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern/Wikiproject_health_controversies

Look for the list of articles that I produced as a page, I forget the name but it is linked from there. Midgley 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Talk:Alice Miller

Please don't modify your comments after they have been replied to. Maikel 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cabbages, Kings and Child Abuse

Hi Cesar Tort, I thought I'd drop by for a little personal chat.

I know one hell of a lot about child abuse myself, and hold a lot of opinions, which is why you won't often find me editing articles on that topic, my opinions, however thoroughly reinforced by experience, don't belong here.

Wikipedia can be hard to get used to at first, because most of the internet seems to be about somebody standing on a soapbox and promoting something, whether a product, an opinion or an idea, without regulation or accountability. Sometimes what they promote is good, sometimes it's downright dangerous, and most times it is every shade in between.

Wikipedia is different, it is just about objectivity, and what lawyers sometimes call "strict proof of evidence" in the form of reputable and verifiable sources. Personally I find that very relaxing because it means leaving all moral dilema outside the door for once, and knowing that, as long as I adhere strictly to policy in my edits, I can count on total strangers to stand over them for me.

It doesn't mean that you cannot do any good. There are plenty of nasty - dangerous agenda that won't stand up to the strict application of Wikipedia Policy any more than they do to your own personal standards, you just have to find them, and when you do the rush of support and validation from the strangest people is a great feeling. --Zeraeph 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I add? You already put wiki in a nutshell. Personally I find myself at home with moralist writers like Solzhenitsyn or Orwell. I like the strongest emotions and even fury on paper. Even though I am an atheist I enjoy Jeremiah’s fires... —Cesar Tort 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite fond of Solzhenitzyn and Orwell myself. ;o) I reckon you are going to have a GREAT time around here as you settle into the rhythm of things. --Zeraeph 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Trauma articles

Hi Kim. Can you take a look at the strong criticism another editor is doing to the article I just created?, Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. You are a naturalist. If I understand natural selection correctly, the phrase “young mammals must attach” is not a fringe one. —Cesar Tort 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I, as a naturalist, would not dare to make such a sweeping statement. It is much more complex than just that simple statement. Some mammals easily attach to artificial things, as long as it give it what it needs, milk and such depending on the needs of young of that species. Chicks are perfectly happy with a robot as a mother. That is attachment at the level of primary needs, or maybe better called dependence. The statement you try to make is at the attachment at the emotional level, which actually is more difficult to determine in animals, but some evidence suggest that in apes and monkeys at least this MIGHT be true (I would need to digb into the literature to see what the current status on this is within the behavioural studies). Beyond that, I think nobody really knows.
This is I think a perfect example of what I tried to tell above. This is a statement that needs a verifiable and reliable source. And within wikipedia, this is the burden that comes with the person who wants to insert the information, not with the person who says it is wrong. I will have a look at the article when I am done editing Natural selection. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI: The rather unpleasant Pit of Despair. Note that "that some recover and some do not." While such trauma is obviously very damaging, even such an extreme, controlled example questions the absolute necessity for attachment in primate models. It also makes one wonder what the basis for the difference is... *cough* genetic variation *cough* Rockpocket (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, the Pit of Despair. Even for monkeys, the results are not explainable unambigiously, and for other mamels, it is even more difficult. The major problem with these kind of experiments is that they very quickley become antropogenic, in whcih we start to project human emotions on the behaviour of the animals. However, it is xtreme difficult to do such a thing, and has led to very wrong cinclusions in the past. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Really impressive stuff the Pit of Despair! I’ll use it for my next book! It’s pure Alice Miller and Psychogenic mode in monkeys. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Cesar Tort 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might like that one. My favorite part is the PhD student who, apparently, claims his experiment demonstrates that even the "happiest" of animals gets depressed. Talk about anthropomorphism. I would have failed him. ;) Rockpocket (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5HTT Allele and trauma recovery

Hi Cesar, I've been following some of your discusions on the RfArb pages with Rockpocket and I wanted to ask both of you a question. I'm posting my question here rather than on the already lengthy Arb pages because I don't want to derail your discussions there.

I posed the same question to Rockpocket so I'll just repeat it here: I just wondered whether you have any insights or comments about the 5HTT allele and it's apparent involvement with many "emotional" or "social" reactions to various stressors in the environment. The New York Times carried a long article on the topic recently as it related to the resilience of PTS victims and other trauma survivors.

I'm not taking a position on this, I'm really just curious. Also, don't feel obligated to respond in great detail or with any great rush. I just thought you might have an interest in this. Ande B 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ande. I haven’t read the New York Times article. However I will offer a comment about the genetic studies in psychiatry. It’s wise to do it here since, as you must now have surmised, I don’t want anymore to discuss in RFArb pages. I’m very busy in real world and I’m fed up of pointless discussions.
I agree with Harry Weiner, director of a mayor NY pharmaceutical company, that the blame-the-patients ideology in today’s dominant orthodoxy in psychiatry is based in what he calls “the genetics of preposterous conditions”. As with my example of shooting the President in the RFArb page you just read, is it not preposterous to suggest that these unpredictable events might be subject to the rules of genetic predestination? Biopsych is based in preposterous genetics.
I know little about PTSD. But let’s take as an example schizophrenia. According to biopsychiatrists schizophrenia is inherited. In their field this is an understandable assumption because, by definition, a geneticist is biased to find genetic solutions to clinical problems. However, in practice psychiatrists found this assumption to be false, and it had to be modified into: “The predisposition to schizophrenia is inherited”. But after decades of research the results are clear: nothing has come of it to date except utter confusion. From my perspective, the perspective of the proponents of the trauma model, enough rope has been given to the geneticists and the assumption that schizophrenia is inherited, or merely “triggered” by environmental stressors, is simply untrue. Clinical evidence for environmental, particularly familial, impact on the etiology of schizophrenia seems to point to the trauma hypothesis. Are you familiar with Theodore Lidz’s criticism of the genetic studies of schizophrenia? You might also find interesting to take a look at Jay Joseph’s 2006 work on genetics and psychiatry [2]. —Cesar Tort 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for such a quick reply, Cesar. As I said, I'm mostly just curious. You seem to understand the supporting data of your own preferred approach quite well. One thing I must agree with is your comments that this RfArb has been taking a ridiculous amount of time that we could all better spend elsewhere. I'm so overwhelmed with catching up on work that has accumulated during my recent illness that it's not funny. The most unfortunate consequence of any bureaucratic proceeding that insists people defend and accuse is that tempers can flare rather quickly and out of proportion with the underlying issues. And often, I've noticed, people begin defending or strongly arguing for positions that are foisted upon them during the process, positions which they may be much more flexible on in other circumstances. It happens with me even though I try to be alert to the phenomenon. Take care. Ande B 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry

Cesar,

Thanks for your comment on my talk pages. I left a brief comment on the BioPsych web pages regarding Solo999's tagging just to bring it to everyone's attention; I know it wasn't you who did this and that we are both waiting to see what the arbitrators decide. You and I seem to be able to talk just fine with one another despite some strong areas of disagreement about editing or POV in a single article. I hope that means we can continue to be productive together and edit articles in such a way as to avoid claims of POV or original research in any article either of us contribute to.

Ande B 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cesar. I agree with Ande. I see no reason to dignify Solo's assertions with a response at ArbCom. I echoed Ande's comments at Biopsych, questioning motivation and the process of the tagging. But I see no reason any of us should address the psychiatric rationale behind his reasoning, as i think it brings nothing new to the table and just prolong the (already extended) process. When ArbCom makes it decision, we should have a framework on which to move the article forward, then we can address his points. Until then, i agree that such edits to Biopsych are unwise.
I note that you encouraged Solo to use your subpage to formulate specific additions to the page. That is just fine, as far as i am concerned. However, it appears that he ignored your advice also and decided to simply tag without explaining how to make it better. Therefore i acknowledge that this has nothing to do with you and see no reason why it should interefore with our collaboration elsewhere. Rockpocket 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

google search

[3] [http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/2/34 http://psychiatrictimes.com/Depressive-Disorders/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802524] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30][31] [32][33] [34]

Links to reputable sources

I agree with Prometheuspan's remarks above about the monster that Wikipedia has become. The ultimate "John Doe" production on the web is Wikipedia. Any passing stranger can edit a page without having to register. Many types of article can be subject to systematic bias, both from outside and within. Especially politics, religion and controversial areas of science (e.g. climate change/global warming and evolutionary psychology, which Wikipedia categorizes as a Protoscience).

I was reluctant to become involved in this dispute because of all the scathing remarks and unsupported assertions from both sides. However, now I have come to the conclusion that it's better to take a stand even if I'm hounded out of the system as a consequence. I was shocked to discover that an external article about Christian Abuse of Wikipedia is on the spam blacklist, so the only way I can direct you to it is to present the URL like this (remove the ***): www.double***blue.info

User:Bhadani is an administrator who has written about the Sabotage of Wikipedia on one of his talk pages. I also saw your recent comment on Prometheuspan's talk page about the media system in which magazine cover stories accept biopsych spin as gospel. I have provided a relevant link concerning this kind of bias below. If the Criticism of biopsychiatry article is given approval, I may be able to do the same with critiques of MRI imaging techniques. I've seen the articles, but I don't have the URLs at my fingertips.

The James S. McDonnell Foundation awards grants for research into Brain, Mind and Behavior through the 21st Century Science Initative. It provides funding to the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University in England. One of the highlights on the Foundation's website front page is the Bad Neuro-Journalism archive.

--Bookish 14:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


I’m very glad to see you aboard. My collection is basically on paper.
I became interested in the field for personal reasons. Among other things, my Catholic mother tried to use psychiatry to impede my sister’s decision to divorce. It’s really mind boggling to see how psychiatrists side the parents during conflicts with their children (obviously, the parents have the means). In a “science” without biomarkers you can do this to anyone if you just have the money to hire a couple of shrinks. Psychiatry is the only (pseudo) medical specialty without lab proof for any of its conditions; so anyone can get labeled, even sane people.
Like you I’m concerned that Christian zealots can freely edit Wikipedia. I’ve printed and read the extensive archives of the Mother Teresa article for example. It’s ignominious to see that through the years the zealots have intended to remove all criticism about that woman. The problem persists this very day.
I’ll start soon in User:Cesar Tort/discussion, which you can freely comment and criticize in its talk page. But even if we have consensus in that talk page I feel it’s prudent to hold posting the article until this process is over.
The good news is that disagreement seems ironed out already. Prometheuspan is right: a lot of pain on both sides could have been avoided... —Cesar Tort 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


As this is a major controversy in psychiatry I think it's very important to restrict supporting references and citations to bona fide medical journals and high-profile campaigners who are medically qualified. I have more links to such sources than would be reasonable to include in a Wikipedia article. Because of the slurs that have been directed against survivor groups I don't think it's particularly helpful to link to articles on the websites of marginalized campaigning organizations. Likewise media reports. Mainstream medical literature will provide more than enough.
I appended a sub-section for collecting external links and will add to it bit by bit. Eventually, you will need to cherry pick the best quality links for the actual article, because there will be too many of them otherwise. -- Bookish 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I wholly agree with you about reliable sources. From now on could you post your suggestions in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion please? —Cesar Tort 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the collection of links in one place. I don't want to have search through lots of text to discover where you've used them. Please copy whichever ones you want to use to the appropriate section of your discussion. -- Bookish 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I already started a proposed section in User:Cesar Tort/discussion (see its talk page also). You are most welcome to introduce another section in User:Cesar Tort/discussion if you wish. I used to read the ICSPP journal you mention in your references, but in 2003 got mad with the new editor because of a trauma issue and discontinued my subscription. —Cesar Tort 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I want the links to stay in one place where I can find them easily. If you want the list moved to the discussion page, keep it right at the bottom of the page and don't remove anything. -- Bookish 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Biopsych links

  1. Against Biologic Psychiatry - an article by David Kaiser, M.D., in Psychiatric Times (1996, Vol. XIII, Issue 12).
  2. Bad Neuro-Journalism archive - The James S. McDonnell Foundation maintains an archive of the worst examples of journalism about the brain from the popular press.
  3. Debunking the science behind ADHD as a "brain disorder" - a position paper from the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP).
  4. Challenging the Therapeutic State - special issue of The Journal of Mind and Behavior (1990, Vol.11:3).
  5. Biomedical bias of the American Psychiatric Association - an article by Duncan Double, MRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist and founder of the Critical Psychiatry Network.
  6. The limits of psychiatry - an article by Duncan Double, MRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist, British Medical Journal, 2002;324:900-904.
  7. Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported by evidence - an article by Annette Tuffs, British Medical Journal, 2004;328:485.
  8. On the Limits of Localization of Cognitive Processes in the Brain - an essay by William R. Uttal, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Michigan, based on his book "The New Phrenology" (MIT Press, 2001).
  9. Neuroimaging and psychological theories of human memory - introductory text for a symposium to be held in August 2006 at the Cognitive Psychophysiology Lab, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany (the text is in English).
  10. Antipsychotics, Economics, And the Press - an article by Steven Sharfstein, M.D., 2004 President of the American Psychiatric Association, which appeared in the APA newspaper "Psychiatric News" (2005, Vol.40:23).
  11. Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association - from Loren R. Mosher, M.D., former Chief of Schizophrenia Studies at the National Institute of Mental Health.
  12. Stop the disease mongering - New Scientist Magazine Editorial, 15 April 2006.
  13. One-Trick Training - a critique of the American Psychiatric Association's advocacy of bio-psychiatry which appeared in the APA newspaper "Psychiatric News" (2004, Vol.39:15).
  14. The emperor's new drugs - abstract from an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, published in the journal "Prevention & Treatment" (2002, Vol.5:1).
  15. Eli Lilly, Zyprexa, & the Bush Family - an article by psychologist Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D.
  16. DSM: The Bible of the psychiatric professon - President's Column, American Association of Community Psychiatrists, on the website of the Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry.
  17. Schizophrenia: Medical Students are Taught it's All in the Genes but are they Hearing the Whole Story? - see Selected Publications by Jonathan Leo, PhD, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Western University of Health Sciences.

Jay Joseph, The Gene Illusion

Cesar: There's an article stub on Wikipedia about Jay Joseph's first book, The Gene Illusion. It has a couple of references which might be useful to you. -- Bookish 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldhagen

Well,

I would like to contribute to it but currently I'm busy doing a few other things.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the Daniel Goldhagen article but I’m still enmeshed in an Rfar case and will not be very active in other subjects until the process is over. BTW, I liked a lot Goldhagen’s Hitler’s willing executioners: one of my favorite books. —Cesar Tort 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note (“autism mess”)

I might not have time to look at it until after the 4th of July. Sandy 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A favour, por favor

Greetings, Cesar. I wonder if you would mind have a look at the following articles overlapping with your area of experitise and opine whether you could consider them notable enough for their own articles?

Thanks! Rockpocket 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, also the San Francisco Bay Psychotherapy Center. Rockpocket 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The late McCready looks serious to me. His views and clinics were similar to Loren Mosher’s, headperson of schizophrenia studies in NIMH.
On the other hand I cannot make my mind about Olsen. A lot of antipsychiatry alternatives are plagued of New Age beliefs. It’s like exchanging an iatrogenic pseudoscience (biopsych) for a benign pseudoscience. —Cesar Tort 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks, i will not tag the McCready article, and leave the others to fend for themselves. Rockpocket 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


regarding Eschatology

Hi, sorry it's taken so long to reply. I'm not sure how helpful my experience can be, but I'll give it my best shot.

Sourcing is key. A lot of the cult articles weren't started with very good sourcing, but the standards have been changing; as the mechanisms for indicating sourcing have gotten stronger, so have the expectations. Unfortunately, without good sources, it's hard to build an article that can stand up to some of the POV-pushing we sometimes see.

I've found that newspapers are among the best sources to look for -- they are written for a mass audience and thus speak in very plain style; they examine both sides, but will frequently point out when someone's story doesn't add up. Failing that, books and scholarly journals may reward the time spent with them, but they have to be used with caution, as sometimes a term will be used that has one meaning in the discipline and a different one outside academia.

If those don't turn up anything... well, it may be time to reconsider whether the time is right to do an article on the group. If you still feel you should go ahead, then the group's own publications can be used -- with caution, of course, as they are a primary source. Frequently it's possible to present the things that should make a reader's warning bells go off, just by finding it in the group's own materials; for instance, the home page for the Eschatology Foundation contains the claim that William Walter cured his own terminal illness, and also makes the quite sweeping claim that "Each is the arbiter of his own fate… unconditionally. ... Right thinking produces right results and wrong thinking produces wrong results." Just the "unconditionally" throws up red flags for me, right away. Your own experience with the group may help you identify the things that people should know this group is teaching, right away.

I hope this is of some help to you. One last piece of advice is that when you search for sources, try different variations: Eschatology Foundation, William Wilfred Walter, William W. Walter -- oftentimes you might get something you can't use as a source, but it will in turn point you to something that you can. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have already created the article Eschatology (cult). Any criticism from you is welcomed. —Cesar Tort 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cesar, a new editor (Jose L Martinez Damian) went to town on the Eschatology article from a clearly pro POV. There may be some good edits in there, but the majority were not (for example, he or she changed every reference of "death" to "transition"). I largely reverted the edits, leaving just one or two that i thought were a slight grammatical improvement. However, you obviously know more about this than most, so perhaps you could read over them to see if there are any in there that are factual and appropriate and if so, add them back. Thank you. Rockpocket 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting since most of them aren’t accurate. Though I promised to work on Wikipedia only on Sunday, I consider this an exceptional case.
The article has been a real hit: a wiki link to it still appeared as #1 in an “Eschatology” Google search the last time I did the search, though the Spanish version of the article (Escatologia) recently dropped to the third place.
This time only POV modifications and minor improvements were performed. But the article was vandalized on July 2 by an American (as can be gathered from the IP number). On the other hand, since Jose Martinez is familiar with the work of Juan del Rio, I guess he is Mexican.
They don’t believe in the existence of death but are indoctrinated to use the word “transition” —or “conscious transition” to refer to the very enlightened “eschatologists” like Enoch, Jesus and Walter. They claim that these three men went to the next “level of existence” without experiencing death. In their official biography of Walter the year of his birth is indicated but not the year of his death at seventy two. Students of Eschatology are advised not to use the word “death” since they believe that “thinking is causative”, and they don’t want to get sick or die.
I’ll only keep a few of Martinez’s true improvements (like the name of the current director for example) but not unproven statements like Walter’s paranormal healing work as a practitioner. Also, Martinez removed the sentence that Eddy didn’t reject theism as radically as Walter did. Unlike most students of Eschatology who only read Walter’s books, I have read some of Eddy’s books as well and it’s clear that she didn’t reject theism despite Walter’s claims to the contrary.
I wonder if it is wise to copy and paste this exchange to that article talk page? —Cesar Tort 06:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That was my interpretation also, but not being familiar with the cult, i wasn't sure. I attempted to engage the editor here. but to no avail (so far). I'll keep an eye on the article, in your absence, during the week to ensure it remains NPOV. Feel free to copy this exchange to the talk page. Rockpocket 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

e-mail problems

Hi Cesar, I noticed you have placed your email on your user page. This is generally frowned upon on WP and, if an admin sees it, they will probably remove it themselves. I'm not 100% sure of all the reasons it is discouraged, but at the very least it will would save you from a lot of spam. Also, there is no need for your to publicize your address as there is a link on the left hand control panel that allows your to email the user whose page you are reading. You could also simply have an email link like thus. I just thought i would let you know before your inbox gets bombarded with Viagra offers. Rockpocket 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Do you mean I can just paste this Special:Emailuser/Cesar_Tort to my user page? —Cesar Tort 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i think so. Any user that is logged in will be able to send you an email via that link. By the way, you may wish to take a look here. I'm busy composing a reply, trying to explain the basics of WP:NPOV and WP:V, but you might wish to comment, especially on the issue of it being a cult. Rockpocket 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

more about Eschatology

Hi Rockpocket:

Though my knowledge of the cult is enormous, true believers often dislike apostates. If Martinez is reluctant to interact with me (I still don’t know) it’d be better to make here, not in his talk page, a few suggestions.

I wouldn’t recommend changing the “cult” title unless Wikipedia policy decides that no organization ought to be labeled as a “cult”. According to the Wikipedia definition of cult—:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream."

Eschatology is a classic cult. I only quoted the first paragraph of the cult article but it gives you the basics.

Of course, no single cultist likes to see his system of beliefs labeled as “cult”. This has happened before in the Spanish Wikipedia. A student of Eschatology tried to start a thoroughly pro-POV es:Escatología article and there was a kind of edit war some time ago, before I appeared with a new article, es:Escatología (secta). Of course, the secular editors won the case. If you see the energy that Antaeus Feldspar has spent in explaining to other cultists why their system of beliefs is what it is, and not a true science, you will see how difficult it is trying to interact with true believers.

The fact that every single “great understander” of Eschatology has died, including Walter, Genevieve Rader and Robert Durling, do not cause any cognitive dissonance to a true believer whatsoever. For instance, Juan del Rio was my Eschatology teacher. Well, even after his four-year agony with cancer his wife still sticks to the dogma that cancer can be healed through “right thinking” (though an advanced teacher like Juan was not supposed to die so horribly). Psychological experiments have been performed that show that doomsday religionists do not give up their rapture belief even after the prophesied date of the second coming of Jesus fails to happen in the prophesied date.

The subject is enormous. I believe that for the moment Martinez should become acquainted with a policy, that Wikipedia is not a vehicle of propaganda: the policy that made the Spanish secular wikipedians win their case vs. the pro-POV student of Eschatology.

I have to get some sleep. I’ll catch tomorrow. —Cesar Tort 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m back. Re Martinez’s proposal you linked above as to rewording the definition of Eschatology—:

“I'm an Eschatology Graduated Teacher. I've studied and practiced for the last 20 years this common sense system with all kind of results...”

—I get now into the specifics in the article’s talk page. Cesar Tort 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. It appears, to me at least, that Eschatology clearly falls within the definition of a cult. Moreover, the word is regularly associated with the doctrine (though i struggle to find an authoratitive source to back that up, which could be a problem). Nevertheless, i think precedent shows that the use of the term "cult" is valid.
Its hardly surprising that cult members would rather think they are not cultists. While he is clearly pro-POV on this matter, he could be a helpful editor. I'm thinking particularly regarding his input on their beliefs, such as the "transition". Lets just hope he can work within policy. Rockpocket 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes: Martinez or any eschatologist can be helpful editors if they respect the policy.
“Moreover, the word is regularly associated with the doctrine (though i struggle to find an authoratitive source)” . Did you mean associated with the Christian doctrine? Perhaps not. But if you meant that, there are Wikipedia articles on the subject of Christian, non Walterian Eschatology.
On the other hand, if you meant that Walter’s cult is so unknown that very few, if any, cult scholars, writers or newspapers have bothered to write about it, you are absolutely right. Due to the scarcity of critical published material about Walter’s cult I wonder if a reliable source, as Feldspar suggested above, is the cult’s own writings (I have lots of them)? —Cesar Tort 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think my google searches were mainly picking up references to Christian Eschatology, thanks for pointing that out. Self published material is suitable as a source for an article about the subject, though there are caveats to that, see here. Personally i think the article is suitble as it stands - you have done a good job in striking a NPOV - and perhaps could only be improved in small biographical details, the sort that a practising member could bring. It seems we are both on the same wavelength regarding this article (now there is a surprise!), so between us we should be able keep its integrity (though, i should add, i see no evidence that our colleague, Martinez, is contributing in anything other than good faith). Rockpocket 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

"Hi. Just curious what exactly do you mean with wikify Trauma Model of Mental Disorders? Cesar Tort 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

Well, the text is one big section of text, it's gotta be possible to divide it into sections. (Making it more readable.) Addicted2Sanity 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I just made changes in article! —Cesar Tort 05:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! I would have done it myself but I figured it best if someone who was familiar with the topic did it. :) 83.223.19.13 06:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Goldhagen

Hi. You have said that you’ll be back to the States (where you have your personal library) in November.

I wonder if the next month you could take care of the article and rewrite those POV passages in a NPOV fashion?

We may discuss then our possible differences in the talk page. Cesar Tort 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC). [Retrieved from User_talk:John_Kenney]

I own a book about Goldhagen and the Goldhagen controversy (edited by Geoff Eley) somewhere at home, but it's probably in storage at the moment, and it'll have to wait until I find a new apartment and so forth, which is probably not until January. Most of the other books I'd want to look at are in the library at Penn, and, as noted, I'm probably not really going to be in Philadelphia so much until then. So it's like I won't be able to do much until the New Year. But do keep bothering me about it, as otherwise I'm likely to forget about it. It's possible, also, that I'll be able to find the Eley book before January, and use it to at least do some editing of the article. john k 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I can wait. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IP vandal

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it. If you see he's vandalized again, leave the test messages. I can block him again if need be. Thanks for being a vandal watcher! --Fang Aili talk 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Low-importance?

That was just my assessment. You can feel free to change it if you want; it won't bother me. I'm just trying to place assessments on all the psychology articles, and most people either don't pay attention to or don't care how most articles are assessed. I know that some of my assessments will be challenged, and that's fine. Just start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, or if you're feeling bold, just change the assessment and see if anyone else challenges it. I will point out two things. First, this assessment is only for WikiProject Psychology, not for Wikipedia as a whole. It is possible for an article to be rated high importance in one WikiProject and low importance in another. Second, the assessment is relative to other articles in the WikiProject. There are many topics that may be important but are not necessarily crucial to gaining an understanding of the field of psychology. You can see the assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. —Cswrye 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find a better explanation of importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Some WikiProjects use the term "priority" rather than "importance", but in practical terms, they mean the same thing. I do want to make the point that a "Low" assessment doesn't mean that the article isn't important, only that it's not a topic that one would expect to find in a psychology encyclopedia. —Cswrye 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/s/User_talk%7ECesar_Tort_archive1_e5a8.html"