User talk:Catskul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV on cannabis? 2 notices 3 Your concerns about your BMI 4 I'm sorry 5 Could you weigh in on the infobox at Cannabis (drug) 6 Re: Victory Day (Eastern Europe) 7 Alexander Graham Bell 8 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:YOmicrocredit2005.jpg

[edit] NPOV on cannabis?

Your edit inserting the word marginal into the "medicinal effects" phrase was both politically loaded and completely unfounded, whatever your intentions. Read about the subject, please. -SM 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I promise there is no political intent in my edit; I dont really have much of an opinion regarding cannabis. When compared to articles regarding alcohol, or opium which also have medicinal uses, the cannabis article seems to over-emphasize the medicinal purposes. It is in the article's best interest not to appear to be out of sync with similar articles, as it will appear to be shill or advocacy rather than reference. The best way to get people to inform themselves on a subject is to disarm their biases by avoiding the appearance of advocacy.

Andy 05:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if I set aside the relative promenance of their medicinal dimensions in the articles opium cannabis and alchohol (itself an unfounded concern), how could you justify altering a sentence to say marginal medicinal properties when this is manifestly untrue, when this fact is well-documented, and when thousands of extremely sick people are keeping themselves alive with- and expressing deep gratitude for- cannabis. Never mind whether the motivation is POV, it is simply wrong.

How do you justify adding a factual error into an article in order to make it fit your idea of either neutrality or proportion? That is a no-no at Wikipedia, period.

-SM 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not regard my previous edit as adding "factual error" and to say it is so is hyperbole as it is hard for a qualification to be factually incorrect. The medicinal uses of marajuana are marginal to its psycoactive effects. Perhaps the word was a poor choice because of its negative connoation, but it remains a fact that other analogous articles do not take such a vigerous tone when discussing medicinal uses as it seems in both cases the medicinal effects are marginal to their psychoactive effects. The level of defensiveness you seem to be expressing is comming across as hostile. I might say that your emotional involvement with this article, while admirable, may be detrimental in that your agression is likely to scare off well meaning wikipedians attempting to make a contribution. I, personally, would appreciate if you would make an attempt to take a more civil tone when discussing edits. Lets leave hyperbolic argument to the politicians.Andy 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to scare you off, or to seem uncivil. I do want to impress upon you that you should think carefully before making such a broad change in the factual basis or content of a cannabis article, for obvious historical reasons. Some of your copyedits were valuable and appreciated, and I agreed about the photo: when I saw it added, I assumed it was a compassion club bust (not perfectly on-topic, but acceptable), but it turned out to be from DEA Operation Mallorca, which was anti-coke and anti-coke money laundering.

The statement medicinal uses of marajuana are marginal to its psychoactive effects is erroneous, full stop. Perhaps marginal in the sense of insignificant is not the sense you intended, but marginal in the sense of peripheral or incidental is also factually incorrect. There is nothing uncivil in saying so, it just is. In the context of your edit, it is one of the oldest historically attested medicines, prescribed in times and places where the psychoactive elements are barely mentioned. A better understanding of the pharmacology would also clarify that point for you. It is well-documented that cannabis is a ancient, powerful and efficacious medicine, something your edit erroneously- if unintentionally- contradicted. Again, I urge you to study the topic more closely, before making such qualifications.

Perhaps it is a mistake given by my ignorance.

Your edit seemed to deprecate the medical efficacy of cannabis. This deprecation, in addition to being factually erroneous, has proven in assertion very hurtful literally and sentimentally to many people. Worse, you crossed that red line with an edit which you described mundanely (merely reversing the order of terms), but had a significant (and not clearly unintended) editorial consequence. Given that, the only reason that I was not more hostile is that I take at face value your assertions of sincere NPOV intent.

There are frequent deliberate attempts in cannabis articles to hide POV edits in mundane copyedits. I do not apologize for a vigorous tone: a casual perusal of the edit history of cannabis-related articles shows the degree of ignorance, bigotry and vandalism these pages attract, variously malevolent (deleting large sections of text), insipid (inserting joe blow of Nowheres, IN, smokes this every day into Cannabis (drug)) and simply mischievious (changing a smoker is busted every 42 seconds, to ten smokers are busted every 420 seconds). Add to this (inserted out of context) the mouths-of-babes truths (They say that cannabis is addictive, but that's a lie!) and blunt rolling techniques, and you can see how this is resisted only by a certain embattled vigor.

As to your observation that other analogous articles do not take such a vigorous tone when discussing medicinal uses as it seems in both cases the medicinal effects are marginal to their psychoactive effects., this may be misperception on several levels, both factual and editorial, which I would be happy to discuss further.

Please do.

Also, the relevance of certain facts may not be obvious. You deleted a paragraph on potency and prohibitionist exagerations, when these exagerations are in part why potency may be topical. You blurred by simplification a precisely stated summary of a controversial fact (lethal overdose). You made large deletions to a very well-settled article Health issues and the effects of cannabis, this was especially not on: the decision to lead with legal constraints on research was essential to contextualize what followed.

This I still have a problem with. I think that it may be a valid thing to discuss in a different section, but is out of scope for the section and subsection that it was found. That given I think the paragraph needs work to remove the POVness of unqualified assertions such as "...have been exaggerated by prohibitionist factions ...". It may be factually correct, but the language is without a doubt POV and inappropriate for a wikipedia article.

Do you want a direct quote from the US or the British press on this (not unreasonable)? I have seen exagerations for both the actual increase (300x) and the consequences thereof (exagerated or compulsary admissions to treatment), including in NIDA literature. The potency issue is also a turning point in the history of the drug, and as such is in scope there. Again, why is this somehow inappropriate? Reread it. At some point, there should be a more comprehensive, separate history, as this one is informative but sketchy. Finally, you should be more circumspect in judging the scope of some of these articles, as their history and development is not always straightforward.

Perhaps I could illustrate my point by giving an example of a rewrite which I feel would be more NPOV: "The increases in potency - and ramifications thereof - have been used and sometimes exaggerated by opponents of cannabis use both in and out of government. .."

But again I think this paragraph needs to be in a different place. While it may relate to cultivation, it is tangent to the stated title ("New breeding and cultivation techniques") and tangent to the greater focus "History". There are always opportunities to link in related points and facts, but to read well, and be professional, the article needs to maintain focus.

See Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Regarding: 1.3 New breeding and cultivation techniques for my answer on the "different place" question. As for prohibitionist factions, it is accurate (I was thinking of that faction in the Labor party agitating for a reversal of rescheduling). Perhaps to use the term prohibitionist seems POV to you? Why?

That said, opponents of cannabis use does sound much better (save page just pressed), though it lacks a certain live-from-the-ramparts feel. =) -SM 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What you call the appearance of advocacy may be a simple statement of a well-documented fact, which is inconsistent with the ambient propaganda. I encourage you to challenge what seems to be POV, but given some or your edits, it might be best to raise them first in discussion on the talk pages.

Well documented fact, presented in the wrong way becomes POV.

How, exactly? Cite an example in Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Consider the logic of showing the epistimological limits of presenting a complex problem under active government opposition. Most research papers explain the limits of their research, this is no different.

The federal government maintains, in the face of all evidence, history and common sense, that cannabis is not medically efficacious. This disagreement deserves acknowledgement, but in a place discussing the government's opinion and its ramifications, not in every context where the medical efficacy of cannabis is discussed. Outright ignorance has no pride-of-place regardless of the power of some of its advocates, that is the beauty of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an advocate only for the presentation of objective truth, nothing more.

-SM 09:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notices

Hey there. In regards to this, very often people will place notices (usually intended for the article page) on the talk page as not to clutter the actual article page. There's no need to be alarmed. Just giving you the heads up. --Howrealisreal 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your concerns about your BMI

Hello there! I noticed that you had posted on the talk page for the body mass index page indicating that the body mass index classifies you incorrectly. I know most people get a bit "huffy" when they find out something classifies them as over or underweight; but i'm glad to say that if you, yourself are athletic and often exercise, then the body mass index would not be used as a means of classifying if you are obese or not.

Certainly, as a dietician myself; even from your description, it would be more than enough for me not to use the body mass index to calculate your mass. I've posted a little sign at the top of the talk page on the BMI page, as this issue seems to be recurring every week. Only if you do no exercise, and have stored fat, and no noticable developed muscule should you be classified using the BMI.

Hope that take s a load off! :-) The magical Spum-dandy 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasnt really concerned myself, but I guess as all the others you are mentioning, I was annoyed to see it used in research, and wanted to put my opinion out there on the talk page so that someone more informed on the subject than me might be encouraged to address the subject in the article. The funny thing is that the edit appears to be the "original" version... that page is missing a massive part of the talk history when compared to the article. In any case, thankyou for your concern. : )

Andy 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well.. i haven't worked my magic on the lower sections of the article; but you're right about there being errors on it. The magical Spum-dandy

[edit] I'm sorry

It's been a bad day. I've made my own compromise edit (which I like better than my original), please have a look. If you insist upon sourcing, I can provide examples. Generally, exageration takes the form of citation of speculative work on the effects of cannabis on heavily-using adolescents, in application to the population in general. Also, the change potency itself is regularly exagerated, by citing mediocre pot of whatever time to high-grade modern pot, ignoring that each of them have been with us for decades. Also, the auto-titration principle is ignored. BTW, they have no real stats, so their assertion is unsourced, making it harder to refute. -SM 08:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of writing an RFC on the talk page, but I would much rather resolve this between us. Your comments here highlight my points well. The fact that it is too hard to cite fairly clearly indicates that the source of this... opinion really, is yourself. I dont even really have a problem with that as there is tons of information out there which is useful but would have to be left out if everything required a source. I dont doubt that what you say has merit, but you cant put that in there without qualificaion for SO many reasons. Please, Im requesting, dont resist efforts to qualify statements which are not possible to source. Im not trying to undermine this article. Honestly... im trying to make it better.

I dont think that the current form is qualified enough. I think my last went as far as possible in leaning toward the validity of the statement given the situation. I would like to change it back to my last. Please give me your thoughts. Andy 08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The exagerations are fact, they are not the subjective opinions of cannabis supporters, which your edit implies. I agreed, in retrospect, that a parative phrasing of opponents in and out of government was much better. All those somes, however, sound weasely- it's a drone! Mine is just more accurate, and is better, tighter prose (sorry). When you read a research paper, then the government spin on it, then the uncritical coverage of the spin, then the talkshows ignorantly jabbering about the spin, then the politicians calling for even more draconian laws because of the spin, the noise just makes you so...tired. Cut it off here. -SM 08:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As per the Policy cited, if it sounds weasely and cant be cited then it should be removed. I dont necessarily agree that this is the case since I see value in noting it. But beyond the weasel words lets look at this with examples. I could say the two following things and both would be fact, but disengenuous because they are not qualified. They can be taken to mean ALL or SOME of the stated party. "Implications" is vague, I could technically be correct in saying either of these because I dont state what I mean I could be refering to anything.

"opponents exaggerate the implications of stronger cannabis"
"advocates down play the implications of stronger cannabis"

The strength of validity of either all depends on POV which is why we need to qualify. I need to get sleep so I cant continue this discussion until tomorrow.

Andy 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have thought up some wording that we can agree on if you can find a relevant source:

Opponents of cannabis use, including those in government have been accused of exaggerating the implications of the increase in potency for political reasons [source]....

Andy 09:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem with your logic: in fact,

• "most opponents (in a highly organized, concerted fashion) exaggerate the implications of stronger cannabis (this has demonstrable consequences)"
• "few advocates (fewer that can be cited, virtually none with organizations) down play the implications of stronger cannabis (this doesn't have consequences)"

Ironically, you often get advocates exagerating the implications by demurrer ("yes, but those of prison are worse", "yes, but prohibition doesn't lower usage"). Given the lop-sided, overwhelming lie that is cannabis prohibition, why are we wasting scruple on this? The Devil has had more than his due.

-SM 10:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My example wasnt meant to be taken as a reference to this specific issue. It was an easy example to demonstrate a point. Heres the issue that I still see and I will try again to restate it a different way to communicate my point. It is very easy in a public debate to look at the opponent and say "look, see what they just did. That proves that they are just makeing this all up" at something validly wrong that some of the opposing camp did, then use those actions to sterotype opponent group as a whole. Im not saying that its intentionally devisive, it happens automatically when people have strong feelings. Its tribal, its human nature. That is what prejudice and stereotypes are all about (unfortunately). Political "camps" use these feelings of sterotying to gain support from their base. And it is *so* easy because that in any contentious public issue, both sides are gulity of hyperbole. All you have to do is look at the extremes of your opponent and cast the entire group in the the light of the extreemists. Using qualifications takes the truth in what you are saying, and avoids sterotyping.

You can keep arguing this with me and eventually I will give up because this is more important to you than it is to me. But when I give up, what you win wont be a better article. You can feel good about being right by arguing my words and ignoring my meaning, but you will have lost the chance to actually listen to what I am actually saying and to take from that a way to make this article better.

Andy 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you weigh in on the infobox at Cannabis (drug)

I say it is inapropriate and inaccurate, Rory069 insists it should be there, and reverts my attempts to remove it. Discussion is here. Could you please weigh in. -SM 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Victory Day (Eastern Europe)

I'm all for ending this edit war. Especially, as I said, it is completely false. The decision to sign a seperate treaty was made because general Susloparov had no authority to sign the treaty. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: OK, I edited the article because Zhukov's memoirs actually mention why another treaty was signed in Berlin. I think that should compromise most of people. Feel free to edit, of course :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Graham Bell

Hi Andy, thanks for your note. I started contributing to this article when it became the source of raging debate and arguments that took the article away from being a historical and biographical piece into a battle over whose claim was predominate in the "invention of the telephone" controversy. This lead has also been rewritten and written so many times to try to eliminate bias and although this is still not a "set in stone" example (see talk page for another take on the lead paragraphs), it was ultimately the version that seemed to have been most acceptable. Yes, the quote is evocative and it frames the life's work of a scientist in a particularly hokey way. I will look at it again. Its use was suggested after referring to many biographies on Bell as indicative of the impact he had made as well as linking back to his passion for communication. As you can read on if you go through the extensive discussion page, everything in this article has been challenged at one time or other. I will rewrite to place this quote more as a summary statement at the end of the article. First things first, vandals are still at the ramparts... 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:YOmicrocredit2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:YOmicrocredit2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)