User talk:Coroebus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coreobus, I don't know if you agree but at Apartheid outside of South Africa the inclusion of the entire Israeli aprtheid article is inappropriate since there's been no consensus to merge and since the other article exists. There should instead be a link to Israeli apartheid with a brief explanatory paragraph. What are your thoughts?Homey 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I think, partly because the Israel article is also quite long, although I'd repeat at least the intro. I think renaming it to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and removing the disambiguation page (redirecting to Apartheid outside of South Africa from Apartheid instead) might be a compromise though. --Coroebus 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 R&I 2 Apartheid 3 Apartheid vs segregation 4 Request for 5 Israeli apartheid 6 Your comments in Islamphobia 7 Your advice? 8 Israel and the UN 9 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 10 Tag on your edit at Animal Testing

[edit] R&I

Any chance you could weigh in here Talk:Race_and_intelligence#RR2?--Nectar 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

I think the 3rd and 4th paragraphs should probably be removed in their entirety since they are unneeded in a lead and since the info is repeated later on. The Rufin report was not adopted so I don't know why it merits being in the lead except that it supports SV's pet theory. With paragraph 3, at the very least, it should be returned to an overview without being a shopping list of names. I also think saying both "Anti-Semite" and "Neo-Nazi' (and now "Holocaust denier") is repetitive and rather belabours the point. Homey 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably agree, but I doubt that's going to make much difference when there is this much controversy. Until we can get people to agree to a slimmed down more cogent article, without everyone feeling the need to elevate their favourite argument or quote into the first line, we'll get no progress. --Coroebus 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid vs segregation

I wanted to make a proposal on Central_discussions/Apartheid, but I just want to have a certain feeling on what people think before I add more polls to that page.

Do you think there should be a separate set of articles on apartheid and on segregation? My personal opinion is that for example "accusations of Israeli Apartheid" is basically the same as "Accusations of ethnical and/or religious segregation in Israel", with latter being a more encyclopedic description. What do you think, does this have merit? -- Heptor _talk 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I remarked somewhere else, to someone else's proposal (this is a very confusing little controversy proposal wise), that I wasn't too sure that segregation/discrimination quite captures the apartheid accusation, which has something of the air of imperialism to it, over and above the segregation (e.g. the Palestinians don't actually live in Israel). I'd really like to find a more neutral term than apartheid for the phenomenon, but apartheid seems to capture it best. So I guess I'd probably be opposed to your proposal (but if you could carry enough others I probably wouldn't cause too much trouble for it). --Coroebus 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are writing is the very reason why I believe an encyclopedia should go with "Segregation" - it means exactly what it says, without subjective nuances and political resonance. Anyhow, I decided not to propose it. To get it through would at best reqiure some heavy campaigning, and the discussion is clumsy enough as it is. -- Heptor _talk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid /SlaveCrixus 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. /SlaveCrixus 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

I would stay away from it. Homey already has left wikipedia, and I am sure others will follow because of what happened. What happened in a nutshell, is that the poll to rename IA to Allegation of IA was going towards the usual no-consensus, so Humus sapeins decided to move the page anyway, resulting in an move war. As a result, Nagle filed an ArbCom request, after which SlimVirgin tried to get a RfM going. That did not work because various people did not agree with that. So that failed, and the ArbCom started. This very quickly became a shouting match between people, and with many many unsupported accusations (I still have to see support for them). Anyway, the case became to complex for the ArbCom, and they decided to treat everything as one big bunch, effectively leaving the hot irons for what they are, hot irons. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments in Islamphobia

Please do focus on the following 1. Precis writing 2. Creating a userpage 3. If you cannot add value stay away 4. Putting you comments in directly rather than hiding them as a reference. No one is interested in your dreams of virgins ( Fat or Slim), so learn to get to the point. It's the talk page for Islamphobia, and it's a person who is Islamphobic who is being mentioned. Grow up and get out of the "school" mode. Haphar 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You had put in a remark ( a footnote) on the page that was placed as if in response to my comment on the page. If you were not speaking to me there, sorry abut the above and consider it withdrawn. But the location is just as if in response to me ( and it did not make much sense- since it's not in response i guess it won't) sorry once again. Haphar 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice?

Hello Coroebus. Its been a while since i have seen any of your excellent contributions in the animal experimentation sphere. If you don't mind, I wonder if you could find the time to have a look at a related mini project i'm embarking on? Your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and the UN

Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please?

86.27.55.184 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Group Areas Act Nail bomb Microsoft WinHelp Action Against Hunger Erasistratus South African Bureau Of State Security European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act Scott-David Allen Thillaiaadi Valliammai International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika Biltmore Conference Robin Murray Jonathan Steele Anti-Apartheid Movement Microsoft Compressed HTML Help Justsystem Richard Peto

Cleanup Flexor carpi ulnaris Reichsmarschall University of Durban-Westville Merge Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Aptitude Life insurance Add Sources Involuntary commitment Craniometry Gluten-free, casein-free diet Wikify The Hindu Hearing Voices Movement Meir Vilner Expand Gerald Posner Strategic Policy Group Black Consciousness Movement

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag on your edit at Animal Testing

Your edit on animal testing included a mention of inserting electrodes into the brain for studies of vision. This is referenced (in Next of Kin) as a technique sampled from the entire world of visual studies, and not from the UK. The paragraph, and referral in the text, discuss primate experiments in the UK. Please add a reference to the use of inserted electrodes for UK studies of vision, auditory, and cognitive studies, or redact the referral to "inserting electrodes into the brain", which clearly did not come from the same reference already listed. Or, if it is there and I missed it, please add a page number. --Animalresearcher 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you know that electrodes (i.e. single unit recording) are widely used for neuroscientific research, especially in vision (e.g. here) so I am just clarifying what sort of things are meant by neuroscientific research into vision, cognition etc... It may not be covered by the reference, but then no one else is disputing that this is what it entails. I also wanted to mention optical imaging but couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it - if you think that other practices are more representative then add them in too - don't be disingenuous by insisting on a reference for something you should know is the case if you are, as you claim, familiar with what goes on in animal research. --Coroebus 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

here's some more electrodes stimulating and recording in the UK. I don't want to add in references since it would clog up the article and doesn't need citations unless someone awkward comes along to dispute it. --Coroebus 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first reference comes from the National Eye Institute, in Bethesda, MD. The second comes from studies of Parkinson's, in which chemical lesions are followed by deep brain stimulation. But there are still not references for insertion of electrodes into the brain for studies of visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. The electrode usage in Parkinson's studies is identical to the human surgical preparation applied in thousands of humans yearly. The MPTP model was developed because humans mistakenly took MPTP (they thought it was ecstasy). But both the chemical lesion and the treatment in Asiz's study directly follow human voluntary efforts. The visual study was simply not conducted in the UK. --Animalresearcher 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, if you actually read the second study, you will find it was conducted in the UK ("Animals and training. For monkeys Hg and Rb, all procedures were performed in accordance with the United Kingdom Home Office regulations on animal experimentation" - look at the authors!), the other study is indeed in a Parkinsonian model, what is your point? It establishes that electrode studies are indeed carried out in the UK (in this case in Parkinson's research, which is one of the area the sentence "This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue." refers to (although I just talk about recording in that, just thought a stimulating one would show the variety of electrode studies). I don't understand your irrelevant waffle about how electrode preps in humans and monkeys are similar, like I give a friggin rat's arse, what do you think I am, some starry eyed ALF activist? I'm in favour of animal research, I'm just opposed to your clumsy revisionism. --Coroebus 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The recording occurs from microelectrodes, and not electrodes inserted into the brain. The deep brain stimulation uses electrodes. This terminology is consistent with your references, but not consistent with the unattributed text you added. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear god. Please tell me you know that a microelectrode is a type of electrode! --Coroebus 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See table 9 of last year's figures here, 100 monkeys had interference with the brain. A not insignificant number. --Coroebus 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced. And still is. It should not be hard for you to understand the need to back up edits you add to Wikipedia with verifiable references. --Animalresearcher 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I regard that as tendentious - I do not think a citation is necessary, I have already established that the statement is true, if you think a citation is necessary then feel free to add one or all of the references I have provided. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel like adding edits to wikipedia for content in a highly controversial article do not require citation from you. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material says "To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material: If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." but you say above "I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced" i.e. you want citations purely for citations sake, not because the material is "doubtful". i.e. you are tendentiously editing and trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT. I would add citations in if I thought anyone realistically disagreed that electrode recordings and lesion studies are carried out in neuroscience studies of vision, cognition or disease models. The only objection has been yours, which isn't an objection to the veracity at all. If you absolutely must have citations for every sentence in the article, put them in yourself, there are plenty, and I've provided you with some. Your edits to the article as a whole annoy me because it looks like you are trying to downplay what you regard as less palatable aspects of animal research, in order to win some kind of propaganda war over animal research - whereas I am here to accurately report what happens in animal research, to allow people to make up their own minds. This just seems like one more example of that, particularly when I see you saying things like "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's)." which I have demonstrated to be false (and I only know and have visited some of the labs). --Coroebus 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Microelectrodes are inserted into the brain to record, not electrodes. There is at least a ten-fold difference in size, which speaks directly to the controversial issue of potential pain and suffering. A microelectrodes is typically 0.1 mm at its widest, electrodes 1 mm wide or wider. And the reference still associates UK auditory primate studies with insertion of electrodes or brain damage, neither of which is true because there are not any UK auditory primate studies. So, yes, I am questioning the validity of your edit on multiple grounds. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, while we are at it, if you could find ANY SINGLE REFERENCE on either brain lesions or microelectrode studies of the auditory system in primates in the UK I would appreciate it. I feel there MUST be an auditory primate physiology community in the UK, but I cannot put my finger on it. --Animalresearcher 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not my field, the auditory groups I know use other species (e.g. ferrets), in fact I'm not familiar with any auditory work in primates. The next of kin 'report' cites a review by Andy King on research that wasn't actually carried out in the UK so they may just be confused. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

King uses ferrets currently. There is also auditory guinea pig and rodent work. But not primates. Since there are not auditory studies that use primates in the UK, perhaps that should be removed. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me, like I say, looks like they mistook his review for the original study. --Coroebus 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the version before you altered it. If you want to mention methods I have no objection as long as it is cited and verifiable. As I already pointed out, the lack of primate auditory studies in the UK already casts doubt on the validity of the Next of Kin report as a source. This highlights the issue. The edits need to be verifiably referenced. I do not think you will have any problem finding citations for the use of microelectrodes in visual or cognitive studies, or brain damage being induced for studies of Parkinson's (this one is actually already in the Next of Kin report). But please do not introduce something because you think it is true without a verifiable reference. --Animalresearcher 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)