User talk:Antelan/Archives/2008/March
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We are in a community
I agree, this is a community. Come on man, don't play dumb with me. You make the statement "Hopping has pressed very hard for inclusion of the word allopathic across this encyclopedia." Don't you think I might react to that as a personal attack? Pressed "very" hard? "Across" this encyclopedia? Don't you think these statement carry a certain tone, one that goes beyond a mere unbiased reporting on an article's content and carry the intent to negatively characterize of me, as an individual? Whether you agree or disagree that this was your intent, surely you might be able to imagine how a reasonable person might take it as such and thus cry afoul of WP:NPA. I'm sure you could have taken the time to state your concerns about the word allopathic (which is what the discussion was about) without trying to point a finger at me personally. Instead, you chose to way a highly editorializing statement about my edit history, and I responded, appropriately I think. I don't understand why it has to be this way between you and me, but nothing productive ever comes of it. As I said originally, let's do other things beside bicker in this way. I've got hundreds of sources that use the word "allopathic" in what is clearly a neutral, non-pejorative manner, from major publications. You've got some sources, always related to attacks on alternative medicine or homeopathy, that oppose its usage in any scholarly context. This was the situation when we began this argument 6 months ago, and it will be the same 6 months from now. All the back and forth between us will never change the meaning of this word one iota. I've never been compelled by any evidence to ban this word from Wikipedia. I have seen evidence as to why its use should be limited to articles regarding Physician training and education in the United States, and/or discussion about aryuvedic medicine in India. That's my opinion, which I have formed after looking closely at hundreds of sources. In my opinion, your reaction to this word is irrational. My attempts to discuss it with you rationally have been a massive waste of time, for both of us. I don't want to waste our time anymore, out of respect for the great work you do on Wikipedia. Surely, we could both just focus on other issues on which we might make meaningful progress. It's better for me, it's better for you, it's better for the whole community. Bryan Hopping T 08:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have hundreds of sources that use the term "allopathic", but none of them are very strong. They're always from a prestigious orthodox-medicine publication, but the term itself will only be used in articles (where the views are of the authors, not the organization), or in a news article, or in some backwater side-page. None of these pages strongly represent the views of the organizations that are publishing the work. At least, not from the sources that I've seen produced thus far. Beyond concerns about the word being pejorative, especially outside of the United States, allopathic is a rarely used word that adds no additional meaning beyond what is conveyed by much more common terms, such as MD or simply physician. So it is a word with a large downside, and no apparent upside. Antelan talk 08:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, good sir. Bryan Hopping T 12:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR on allopathic medicine
I believe your edit history today on Allopathic medicine violate 3RR, though I could be mistaken. I posted this on the Talk:Allopathic medicine page, but didn't see a response. I urge you to respond, or reconsider your 3rd revert. Bryan Hopping T 08:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood. I was working on your proposal for the paragraph NOT to go in the lead. Water under bridge now who cares, sort it out you contributed to the confusion and not for the first time. Not be going there again. Peter morrell 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your comment on my talkpage, if you really want to know the opinion I have fomed of you (and why), then you would have to email me thru the system. I am not stating it here. If not, then fine too, whatever. Peter morrell 09:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My Personal Experience of "The Fringe"
In reference to your recent comments on the Natalizumab talk page that it would be better to edit other pharma-class pages (some of which I did today over many hours) to match what I see as the gross WP:undue of N - you might reflect on this, specifically "The Fringe", and please excuse me for borrowing from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antelan - to understand my experience of the consensus in this matter -
"An unfortunate byproduct of Wikipedia's openness is that it tends to favor fringe groups. The policies regarding fringe theories go unenforced because the fringe groups make loud, complex arguments - arguments that are invariably specious. Nevertheless, these arguments take so much time to dissect and lay bare that the average Wikipedian tires long before they can get at the core of the problems." (this was my N experience - I ask quesions about N and comparisons, and I get either: a) diffeent questions in response or b) complete answers to totally different questions)
"Wikipedia presents a haven for the fringe.....The mainstream gains only a psychic satisfaction. The fringe, in contrast, stands to benefit massively: it can give itself the trappings of veracity and acceptance by skewing Wikipedia away from neutral" (exactly the WP:NPOV issue with N). "This skew can be added in a variety of ways. The two most obvious are: adding articles about unencyclopedic fringe topics; and fighting for abstruse wordings that make well-documented facts and rigorous scientific theories look controversial" (again, essentially the N experience - for example, the incomparable multiple descriptions of PML/death).
"The Wikipedia that I have experienced for the last few months is one that all too often astonished me with the extent to which the fringe has willfully worked its way into the very subject matter that I considered most self-obvious and best-sourced: science" (again, in the N experience - note how media reports from non-medical sources have been elevated above the scientific facts). I initially joined Wikipedia to correct an honest mistake here and there (for N, I have a goal to see this, especially given the time-critical gravity of the WP:undue), and add useful material where I could. That is the Wikipedia I would like to return to in the future" (Agreed - and once again, this has been my Personal Experience, except that "The Fringe" has been the "old-establishment", whether they be fully qualified or not to render judgement on the specific issues tabled - and I do not mean this with any sarcasm)......io_editor (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want me to continue to discuss Natalizumab with you, I'm going to need you to explain your connection to the drug. I'll be more than happy to explain more about myself to you, as well. We can do this privately, through email, if you'd like. Otherwise, this is just a conversation that has already concluded. Antelantalk 03:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure you were discussing Natalizumab per se, to me it has been either a) personal criticism; b) any other pharma; or c) anything about N except the science. The only "connection" is that I am more narrowly specialized (consider that as having "poor broad knowledge" if you like) than others (you can look at my User page), and that I contribute on pages where I know what I am talking about. For example, I synthesized this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#draft_table_.28for_an_.22investigational_therapies.22_page.29 - and it turned into this new page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapies_under_investigation_for_Alzheimer%27s_disease - and nobody has said that any of my facts are questionable. I have also turned the adalimumab (and in the past glatiramer acetate) into coherent pages. And I don't rest when WP:undue could have serious consequences - I do know several MS patients and the outside-wiki world is far more important than the one here. Finally, I am at a loss to explain why anytime I touch the subject of N, I get reverted or criticized; you yourself will recall my very first single sentence & cite....io_editor (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I'm interested in talking about this off-wiki is because I'm interested in knowing how you came to have this knowledge - i.e., your connection to this drug. Antelantalk 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even is I assume that your claim of a "connection" is not a repeat of your earlier COI tag (which followed my addition of one sentence w/cite on a Crohn's page), your leap of logic based upon "knowledge" is a specious and non-content-focussed argument.....io_editor (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware that the content issue has already been decided by consensus, so nothing we discuss is going to change that. Antelantalk 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Decided more than Discussed. But there is also WP:POLLS and I would ask the participants which picture of the page is right and wrong...they can't both be right...I won't give up on right when it is important (outside-wiki world) .....in my opinion the well-meaning people who knew most about the subject matter wrote a far better and fully-balanced (nothing "under the rug") page earlier this year...io_editor (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware that the content issue has already been decided by consensus, so nothing we discuss is going to change that. Antelantalk 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even is I assume that your claim of a "connection" is not a repeat of your earlier COI tag (which followed my addition of one sentence w/cite on a Crohn's page), your leap of logic based upon "knowledge" is a specious and non-content-focussed argument.....io_editor (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I'm interested in talking about this off-wiki is because I'm interested in knowing how you came to have this knowledge - i.e., your connection to this drug. Antelantalk 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure you were discussing Natalizumab per se, to me it has been either a) personal criticism; b) any other pharma; or c) anything about N except the science. The only "connection" is that I am more narrowly specialized (consider that as having "poor broad knowledge" if you like) than others (you can look at my User page), and that I contribute on pages where I know what I am talking about. For example, I synthesized this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#draft_table_.28for_an_.22investigational_therapies.22_page.29 - and it turned into this new page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapies_under_investigation_for_Alzheimer%27s_disease - and nobody has said that any of my facts are questionable. I have also turned the adalimumab (and in the past glatiramer acetate) into coherent pages. And I don't rest when WP:undue could have serious consequences - I do know several MS patients and the outside-wiki world is far more important than the one here. Finally, I am at a loss to explain why anytime I touch the subject of N, I get reverted or criticized; you yourself will recall my very first single sentence & cite....io_editor (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To say that it was only decided and not discussed (interesting Germanic capitalization, by the way) is to give short shrift to the actual process that occurred. Antelantalk 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not hear any real coherent argument other than a closing-of-the-ranks behind WLU's position - despite his wanton use of the delete option and his 4-letter vocabulary - nor find one Wiki parallel (thalidomide !! - so much for "discussion"), and - given the Importance - have decided not to give up, and am looking at Wiki recourses (peer review, mediation, arbitration, and I even looked up the Wiki core Mission Statement and Values just now). With the knowledge that this is your page to delete as you like - simply this is an important medical topic and your group is unwilling or unable to apply any such principle ...and so we have come full circle...io_editor (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take it you're not interested in talking about yourself off-wiki. That's fine. If you think there have been conduct issues, you are free to escalate up the chain. Antelantalk 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You ask me to introduce myself off-wiki to you? Your wp:COI greeting on my Talk page, contrary to wp:BITE, arising from a 1-sentence, cite-backed, and fact-based edit, undoubtedly biased all. And it is obvious that you are repeating the COI here with your "connection" charge. Instead you could have made some amends by examining what I had stated, not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; instead you insisted twice that I was "pushing PML under the rug" - which is not in any of my edits, ever. And on your User Page you plead for Science, and yet on the N:talk page you flag 4-year old NYT articles above any scientific evidence. Well I am going to focus on content. If I escalate up the chain, it will be the Page, and not the deleters - that is why I wrote "peer review, mediation, arbitration" above. See you around...io_editor (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take it you're not interested in talking about yourself off-wiki. That's fine. If you think there have been conduct issues, you are free to escalate up the chain. Antelantalk 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't think I've ever hidden my impression of you as having a COI with regards to natalizumab. Yes, of course I think you have a COI. At this point, though, I don't care about that real or perceived COI. I'm just personally interested in what you do (thinking that perhaps you could be someone who worked to develop the drug itself, probably hoping for too much with that though). Clearly you're not interested, so no worries.
- Regarding conduct - I specifically did not mention content, because you've already exhausted most of the content-related options on Wikipedia. For example, ArbCom expressly does not deal with content. So unless you think there has been misconduct, it's not likely that these options will help your cause. This is not intended to keep you from trying those options, and instead is just a suggestion to look into how those processes work before you potentially spend your time fruitlessly. Antelantalk 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Medical Wikiproject
If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine.
David Ruben Talk 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTRS
Very interesting. Please elaborate on your intentions. -- Fyslee / talk 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, my feeling is that many of the battles on Wikipedia right now actually come down to misunderstandings of reliable sources for a particular topic. This has manifested itself as a civility battle. It takes time and effort to understand content-based arguments. It takes even more time to get a feel for the reliability, within the context of any particular disagreement, of sources that people are bringing to the table. I think people do a good job with sources that are obviously very strong or very weak, but I think that it's hard for most everyone to deal with middle-ground sources. Right now, these "unobviously unreliable" sources are the ones that I want to try to tackle. What are your thoughts? Antelantalk 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OM's user page
I just move-protected it, per his request. It isn't edit-protected. Thanks for the note though. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Orthomolecular medicine RfC
Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I took a look at TheNautilus's talkpage, and based on his comments he dislikes(?) me. Strangely, I don't remember having interacted with him before, so perhaps it's just because we approved different versions of the intro. At any rate, I'll watch the OMM page. If TheNautilus decides to work towards a more content-and-consensus-oriented approach by using the talkpage, I'll be more than happy to make suggestions. Antelantalk 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
