User talk:Cesar Tort/archive1

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.

Contents 1 Gullible skeptics 2 Belated Barnstar 3 Hail, Cesar! 4 Images 5 Mother Teresa 6 Re: your edit (Scientology and psychiatry Talk Page) 7 Tidying talk pages 8 You may want to add an article to this project 9 Talk:Alice Miller 10 Cabbages, Kings and Child Abuse 11 Trauma articles 12 5HTT Allele and trauma recovery 13 Don't worry 14 google search 15 Links to reputable sources 15.1 Biopsych links 15.2 Jay Joseph, The Gene Illusion 16 Goldhagen 17 Thanks for the note (“autism mess”) 18 A favour, por favor 19 regarding Eschatology 20 e-mail problems 21 more about Eschatology 22 reply 23 Goldhagen 24 IP vandal 25 Low-importance? 26 Ongoing.... 27 The ADHD scandal 28 Poesía 29 Karellen 30 Breggin POV template 31 WP Break & Turin shroud article 32 bienvenido 33 Hail, Cesar! 34 to display the characters 35 WP:USER 36 Hello. 37 Thanks 38 some cults beleive in the trauma model 39 Overpopulation category 40 Article deletions 41 Spanish wiki 42 Hi, Cesar -- From JuneTune 43 Thanks for the welcome! 44 retrieved from my subpage talk page 45 Image copyright problem with Image:Parado.JPG 46 Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga 47 Hello Cesar 48 ECT article 49 Re: Chess rating 50 dissociative disorders 51 Comment on Ross 52 Satanic ritual abuse and mediation 53 "Satanic ritual abuse" scandal 54 Request for mediation not accepted 55 How to win the Satanic ritual abuse debate 56 Sahagun citation 57 Evidence 58 Biopsychiatry controversy 59 Bélmez faces 60 Psychohistory 61 requests for comment .... 62 AfD 63 positions 64 Psychohistorical views on infanticide 65 Fountain House 66 Wrad reverting his talk page again 67 helpme 68 Stuff 69 Edit conflict in Satanic ritual abuse 70 AfD nomination of Ritualized child abuse 71 A thought 72 Some tools 73 Sub page for ye 74 Anti-psychiatry 74.1 Anti-psych edit conflict 75 Psychohistory 76 Psychohistory [permission] 77 Infanticide article 78 Belmez Faces 79 Torture 80 The scene of battle 81 Bibby

Gullible skeptics

Retrieved from Skeptical Inquirer talk page:

Please tell me which Skeptical Inquirer issue has dealt with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since I don't remember anyone. In fact, I have discussed ADHD with the Skeptical Inquirer editor quite a few times thru email and he does not seem to be interested in the subject (though he did publish my short article about the Bélmez Faces). —Cesar Tort 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

May/June 2006 issue, see the photo of the cover in the main article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am truly shocked that Kendrick Frazier published the article you called my attention to: a pro-psychiatry piece for the immoral drugging of healthy American children with Ritalin.

Back in 1992 Prometheus Books rejected John Modrow’s How to become a schizophrenic even though Peter Breggin wrote a warm endorsement for the manuscript. Modrow had no choice but to self-publish it with his earnings as a blue collar hard worker at Seattle bay. I am afraid that I have no choice but to quote a paragraph of a 1998 letter he sent me:

Now in regard to the people at CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer, I pretty much dismiss them as a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots. Perhaps I’m a bit too harsh. After all, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. In fact, I approve of what they are doing —except that they never go after the really big fish: an establishment pseudoscience like psychiatry. In fact, I recall reading one article in the Skeptical Inquirer in which Thomas Szasz and other critics of psychiatry were put in the same category as "creation scientists" and other purveyors of superstition and anti-science.

My bold type above. —Cesar Tort 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Cesar Tort, on behalf of the Wiki community, you are hereby awarded The Original Barnstar Award for your outstanding contributions to psychiatry related articles, and in particular for bringing sanity to the Biopsychiatry article, for creating the Trauma model of mental disorders article, your many insights into mental health, and for setting a sterling example of how to remain cool under withering conditions. Show it with pride! Ombudsman 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "sanity" Ombudsman talked about was, of course, the creation of the "pov fork" article Biopsychiatry controversy.

Hail, Cesar!

For the long-overdue rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.

Thank you for the much needed rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, which was, prior to your work, often a source of contention, very uneven, and poorly documented. Good job! Madman 12:28, 16 March 2007 (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.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 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?

• Kevin F. McCready
• Sequoia Psychotherapy Center
• K. Brent Olsen

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)

Ongoing....

Hello Cesar... would appreciate any ongoing help at Shroud of Turin. When it was elevated to FA it was very finely balanced, close to a perfect article, I'd say. Now we have someone who just wants to slash through it at will. Well-timed reverts from us both should either resolve the situation or lead to badly needed arbitration against Codex. JDG 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that I’m not alone trying to revert pov religious propaganda in WP. What do you suggest to do next? ―Cesar Tort 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do it, but some folks force one into it: a revert tag-team. When you see Codex reverting me, revert him. That way he'll hit 3 reverts before either of us do... My problem is not with including the religious POV. All major PsOV should get a mention. But the intro paragraph was very finely tuned before his incursions, and the particular statement he's making there is simply untrue. Thx. JDG 08:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support, JDG. But… I have a problem.

I arrived to Wikipedia on March. The next month I was unexpectedly dragged to a long and nasty WP:RFAR process precisely because an issue of edit warring regarding pov tags.

I was unaware at that moment of the WP rules and was caught in the middle of the fire. I cannot afford another edit war… I’m still trying to understand WP's labyrinth and its rules. Wouldn’t it be wiser to ask for mediation for this page? Since we are right I guess it will be relatively easy to get rid of that tag without going to war! ―Cesar Tort 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cesar-- I don't mean we should go to war regarding pov tags. I just mean when one of us sees Codex reverting the other (say I see him reverting you), we jump in with our own revert of Codex (in this scenario, I would jump in and revert him). I used the phrase "tag-team", since this is sort of like playing "revert tag"-- nothing to do with code tags (he can keep his npov tag for all I care)... You're right, mediation would be better. But it's difficult getting everybody lined up for it, and Codex is so plainly in the wrong. It would almost be doing him a favor to revert without any hostile comments until he gets tired of pushing his pet Shroud idea into the intro. It's a chance for him to back off gracefully.. I've been active on Wikipedia since 2002 and have been banned only once-- by an out-of-control Administrator who was himself banned when the truth came to light. So I think you can feel safe about this. If Codex really proves unable to grasp why he's in the wrong, then yes, I would advocate RfC. Thx. JDG 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid I’m missing something. Isn’t coordinating a series of reverts a kind of editorial war? I have no experience whatsoever with mediation. Do you mean that we have to convince an admin to intervene and that they are reluctant to do so? Where is the WP page to present such request? Couldn’t we both just request that? If the pov tag doesn’t bother you, what would be the point of mediation? With regard to arguments per se, isn’t it enough that a notable critic, Nickell, considers the shroud a quasi-negative, not a “photographic negative”? ―Cesar Tort 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The ADHD scandal

Let me add my voice to Bookish. I put up a gallant fight to improve the ADHD article but in the end they simply wore me down. It was taking up too much of my time. Here is my article on ADHD [35] which will be coming out next year in a book "Rethinking ADHD". I think you will enjoy it.

As a separate topic, how did you know Dr. Kurtz. As an undergraduate he felt I was his best ever and tried to encourage me to go into philosophy. This was before he moved on to Buffalo. Is he still alive?

Any way it is simply impossible to reason with the people controlling the ADHD page. They even removed much of my material from the controversy page. It is amazing that Ned Scott is still there, still using the same arguments, and totally unreachable by anything resembling logic or evidence. --Ss06470 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Yes: I read everything you wrote in the ADHD talk page and I liked it. You gave a good fight. Have you read the letter I wrote to Jimbo (see above)?

I met Kurtz in November 1989 during a conference in Mexico City. Then I read much skeptical literature and met him again at the CSICOP 1994 annual meeting in Seattle. We exchanged some letters but I became upset when his chosen editor, Kendrick Frazier, published an ADHD article this year (again see above). Kurtz still lives.

Have you read my paper [36]? I wish I could find an editor for it (as you found one in Jonathan Leo’s forthcoming book). ―Cesar Tort 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Poesía

How was it possible that the article was locked with an inappropriate tag? An admin should remove it, please!

SqeakBox: The article is NPOV. You have made edits in another article defending another dictator, Fidel Castro. When you write “With the West encouraging racial divisions” this strikes me as paranoia. You say you have a level 5 in Spanish. If that is true you could understand poetry. Here are the words of Octavio Paz, the main debunker in Latin America of stupid anti-West sentiments:

“

Las ideas se comieron a los dioses los dioses se volvieron ideas grandes vejigas de bilis las vejigas reventaron los ídolos estallaron pudrición de dioses brotaron ideas armadas idearios ideodioses silogismos afilados caníbales endiosados perras enamoradas de su vómito Hemos desenterrado la ira La biblioteca es una madriguera de ratas feroces La universidad es el charco de las ranas Los doctores discuten en la ladronera Los dialécticos exaltan la sutileza de la soga Amamantan la violencia con leche dogmática El ideólogo cubiletero afilador de sofismas en su casa de citas truncadas trama edenes para eunucos aplicados

”

Translation:

“

Ideas ate the deities the deities became ideas great bladders full of bile the bladders burst the idols exploded putrefaction of deities armed ideas sprouted ideolized ideodeities sharpened syllogisms cannibal deities dogs in love with their own vomit We have dug up Rage The library is a nest of killer rats The university is a muck full of frogs The doctors dispute in a den of thieves The dialecticians exalt the subtlety of the rope nursing violence with dogmatic milk The juggling ideologist sharpener of sophisms in his house of truncated quotations and assignations plots Edens for industrious eunuchs

”

―Cesar Tort 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(Retrieved from Talk:Saddam Hussein)

Cheers for the poem. I put it on my talk page. I dont like dictators any more than the next person and am well aware of what a nasty person Saddam was. But he's not the only one.

We are working for the moral upliftment of all humanity , Lincoln Thompson. SqueakBox 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Many Mexican leftists hate Paz. Are you familiar with Álvaro Vargas Llosa's Manual del perfecto idiota lationamericano? —Cesar Tort 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Karellen

For any redirect, you can click the name you typed or clicked on again where it says 'redirected from whatever'. It'll take you to the page where you can look at the history to find old versions of the article. Karellen's history is here[37]. Sorry about the confusion and happy editing! Lebroyl 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. But maybe the Karellen article should have stayed, albeit in its original, short from? --Cesar Tort 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Breggin POV template

Hi Cesar, when adding a POV template, don't forget to explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article. There is already an ongoing discussion on the subject and simply slapping on templates without engaging is not constructive. Thanks. Rockpocket 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP Break & Turin shroud article

Thanks for writing Cesar. I hope you enjoy(ed) your break, and I also hope you find time to write the article - to provide better balance, those points you make need to be out there. Talk to you soon, best wishes. Matthew.hartington 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

bienvenido

Hello, it is good to have another point of view in the aztec and mesoamerican articles. And another reader of "Arqueologia Mexicana"  :) Nanahuatzin 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nanahuatzin. I hope I may be of some help. I am writing a book on childrearing and will include a chapter on Tenochtitlan, "the most beautiful city of the world" 500 years ago. The contrast of its absolute beauty (I love Ignacio Marquina's color illustration of the city) with some of its custumes shocked me. That's why I'm doing a little research. —Cesar Tort 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was a culture full of contrasts. Read some of the Huehuetlatolli regarding the education of the children, and compared with the hard education they gave to their children and you will hardly believe it was the same civilization. Then remember they were from a continent completelly isolated from Europe, asia and africa from the start of their civilizations they developed along completelly different paths. We can not judge them frrm our XX (XXI) century s eurocentric standards, just we can leanr and undestand part of the human nature. Even the treatment of the children in the europe of that time was harsh compared with our own century. Recently i has reading some of the books of "Narnia", and where C S Lewis mock of modern schools, because they have no longer physical punishment to the children...

finally, as an skpetics, we must be carefull of those who denied all, and those who see evil. Nanahuatzin 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I have the luxurious edition that León-Portilla commented of the Huehuetlatolli. I must read it soon for my little research. —Cesar Tort

Now i am becoming envious.. seems you have a great library. Excelent. you can help us to trace some references. Nanahuatzin 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

“We can not judge them from our XX (XXI) century’s Eurocentric standards.”

I am afraid I disagree on this one. Remember that Quetzalcoatl disapproved human sacrifices (alas, Tezcatlipoca defeated him). And I believe that cultural relativism is an abomination. To understand this take a look at the flaming debate in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing/Archive. —Cesar Tort

And yet children were sacrifice in his name, and in Teotihuacan, the bigest human sacrifice known was for Quetzalcoatl. I am begeining to suspect the benevolent view we have of Quetzalcoatl cult is a myth... But that is not the point... What i want to say is that I want to understand before making any judgement. At least, when writting for the wikipedia we must try to put the facts, withouht judgment. Something i don´t always manage to do, but that is the good of having so many difrerents points of view, always there will be people who ask tought questions. Like you.. Nanahuatzin 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

“Even the treatment of the children in the Europe of that time was harsh compared with our own century.”

Yes: absolutely agree! Have you taken a look at these tables I helped to edit?

—Cesar Tort 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hail, Cesar!

Thank you for the much needed rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, which was, prior to your work, often a source of contention, very uneven, and poorly documented. Good job! Madman 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the compliment, Madman! I have spent the last few weeks researching the fascinating subject and yesterday I just went bold. In fact, I spent the whole day re-writing it. I’m so glad you liked it… Cesar Tort 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

to display the characters

See Help:Multilingual support (East Asian) so ??? doesn't show up. Blueshirts 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that article, Human sacrifice, is not specific about the Chinese. Therefore, the characters that in most computers appear as ??? ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER

Hello Cesar. I have been watching with interest the recent additions to your userpage. I'm a little concerned that it is becoming a bit of a polemic, and thus in violation of WP:USER. Note also that, according to Jimbo, "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." So at the very least I would recommend you refrain for commenting on Ark's "flaming" discussion or pondering the limitations or "stupid[ity]" of other editors. Nice work on the human sacrifice article, btw, ots very impressive. Rockpocket 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

What are your thoughts on North and South American tribal societies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.227.133 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC). --User:Xvall 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Early infanticidal childrearing. —Cesar Tort 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Cesar

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this but I can't work out how to get to your talk page. I want to thank you for your message of support which meant a lot to me and strengthened my resolve to stand my ground on the ECT article. As you suggested I put in a request for mediation. We shall see what happens.

RegardsStaug73 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: this is the right place to post your posts! Please feel free to write again whenever you want.

Cheers! —Cesar Tort 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

some cults beleive in the trauma model

I was wondering if you were aware that the Church of Scientology practically invented the trauma model (even Freud was infatuated with it, but finally rejected it, tho, and others felt he was too hasty in so doing). DMSMH might blow your mind it is radically dedicated (by almost any standard) to that model/ was probably the 1st book to give the proposiion so much credence (perhaps not the last, however...Arthur Janov's Primal therapy was pretty adamant/insistant on excluding all other models). I am not trying to sell you on scientology, or cos, btw. Thaddeus Slamp 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1) No scientologist I know believes in the trauma model: on the contrary, they have very strongly criticized me when I try to tell them that parents cause mental disorders. —Cesar Tort 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I misa-stated. DMSMH (if I understand what is meant by the trauma model, correctly) was may have been to propose a truly radical global trauma theory of mental illness/human abberation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)

2) Janov is not an ethical man. He’s rather a kind of guru, as I discussed somewhere in this forum.[38] —Cesar Tort 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the web adreess you sent looks dreadful to me. Also the link is to nothing in this furum. I'll look into your earlier work. Thaddeus Slamp 06:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Overpopulation category

Retrieved from User talk:Ryulong:

What happened with that important category you just removed from my user page????

—Cesar Tort 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. There were only three individuals in it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How many individuals should be for a category to exist? —Cesar Tort 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no set number. The category is simply one that does not have anything to do with Wikipedia and one does not need a category (or a userbox) to express ones ideas.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's no official set number do I have the right to re-insert it? —Cesar Tort 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as it's deleted. You can say "I am worried about overpopulation" without stating it in a useless category.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But why did you take this unilateral decision without consulting us? In fact, to me that was the most important category of all. —Cesar Tort 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories with low populations (ironic, isn't it?) are deleted on a regular basis. The category for Wikipedians concerned about overpopulation was one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. Please let me know if you receive more complaints from that policy or if there is a chance in the future to reinsert it. —Cesar Tort 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "Wikipedians concerned with" anything categories are generally frowned upon, as categories are supposed to facilitate collaboration on articles. Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention. Feel free to create a "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" category though. VegaDark (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention.

This sounds extremely bizarre to me. It's like saying that there's no problem in Calcutta or here, in Mexico City with more than 20 million, many of which are very poor. "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" sounds to me as Newspeak's blackwhite speech: it conveys exactly the opposite idea of what I am concerned about. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying you're concerned about overpopulation does not help the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But it could help the poor people here (and elsewhere). —Cesar Tort 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write you are concerned about overpopulation on your user page, though. User categories, however, should have an encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean that it wouldn’t help? Any new user that sees this category could use it in his or her user page as a moral statement representing what historian Kenneth Clark, the author of the acclaimed TV series Civilisation, called the new barbarians: the people who breed like rabbits condemning millions to poverty. —Cesar Tort 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not help Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to have a category for users who are concerned about the overpopulation of the Earth. It may help in a social context, but not on an online encyclopedia. Please stop pursuing this—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears you forgot this bit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. It's just unresponsive to the issue I raised. Please stop now. —Cesar Tort 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Article deletions

Hi Cesar, Noticed your query to Ombudsman. Just a suggestion: if you have a talent for getting into someones head and seeing the proposers point of view, then you may be able (without recourse to analytical terminology which would be both offensive and a professional faux pas) turn it into a cathartic experience for everyone. I sometimes find that one needs to work-out which little bit of information the other person needs to make the connection to the bigger picture -and the article's place within it. This is providing everyone has a reasonably well developed skill of 'critical reasoning'; therefore, don't think it would work in the current ECT issue. Just get suck in and give you views.--Aspro 10:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe my last pm to Ombi was about another article, not about ECT. —Cesar Tort 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wiki

Hi Madman 2001,

A Latin American wikipedian is looking for trouble when he pov tagged the Spanish article of es:Sacrificios humanos en la América prehispánica. He is jealous since the article was nominated "good article" yesterday and he is saying that we have to listen to those who deny the historicity of the sacrifices.

I am only asking you to tell me the source of this sentence which I believe you placed:

Some researchers have also associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp "were-jaguar" babies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5 (to the right) or Las Limas figure. Definitive answers will need to await further findings.

The said editor placed a citation needed tag and I would like tu supply it. Thanks!

—Cesar Tort 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:

"Larger-than-life humans emerging from interior spaces occur on large retangular thrones . . . at La Venta, San Lorenzo, Laguna de los Cerros, and elsewhere. According to Beatriz de la Fuente they depict the widespread Mesoamerican origin myth that marks humankind's emergence from the cave of the earth at the beginning of life. Seated persons holding a baby occur on small, portable greenstone objects, monumental thrones, and freestanding sculptures. The baby frequently lies in an inert, death-like pose, suggesting the offering of a sacrificed infant, reminiscent of the remains of sacrificed infants uncovered at El Manati." Richard A Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization, p 109-110.

I can look for others, too. Madman 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Madman2001. It'll be useful. —Cesar Tort 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cesar -- From JuneTune

Hey, Cesar. I see that we see eye to eye on a lot of these issues. Thanks for your input on the psychiatry-related articles. I know it's an uphill battle. JuneTune 04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you, June. People like you are badly needed in Wikiland. Have you seen my article [39]? —Cesar Tort 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cesar. I just read your article "Psychiatry as Pseudoscience ...." and am really impressed. What's your background? The article's a great blend of scientific critique and philosophy. Would you consider it submitting to EHPP? Their most recent issue included a call for papers. BTW, I'm a big fan of MindFreedom International, PsychRights and ICSPP. I presented a paper to ICSPP at their 2005 conference (but I wish I had had you as an editor :)). JuneTune 03:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I sent my MS to EHPP in 2003. Laurence Simon accepted publication if I withdrew the paragraphs about the trauma model. I rejected that. Simon insisted. I pointed to Simon books like Colin Ross’s 2004 Schizophrenia and Read et al. Models of Madness. Simon insisted that I should remove all reference to the trauma model. I got really upset and wrote to Breggin and Cohen. They behaved like cowards.[40] I got extremely upset and wrote about them in my third book (in Spanish). Anyway, I am still opened to re-submit the paper to them. But maybe they’re upset too because of my Amazon Book review. —Cesar Tort 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I actually haven't read Diaz's book, but looking at all the interesting reviews, I might have to sometime! MRB15 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

retrieved from my subpage talk page

(regarding your summary on the deletion of my comment) Then it has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. Since user space is not for soapboxing but instead to discuss how to improve the project what others say on other forums are completely beside the point, non-notable and you should not be debating them here. Rockpocket 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Parado.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Parado.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. BigDT 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please delete it. —Cesar Tort 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

Thanks, Cesar, for your comments. I have changed the tags on the page so that they better reflect my objections. First, the article is written in an unencyclopedic style -- it sounds more like a fan site than a neutral article. Second, there are no references at all. The article states things like, "He was brought up in the spirit of the Cristero movement, in the spirit of St. Miguel Pro and other Catholic martyrs...". Now, that may or may not be true, but it is not an appropriate line for an encyclopedia article. -- Juxtatype 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cesar. It does seem much better. I am at a bit of a disadvantage since I know very little about Fr. Sáenz, but I think your changes are definitely an improvement. — Juxtatype 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cesar

I would like to direct your attention to the wikipedia policies on WP:MEATPUPPET#Meatpuppets - This thread at primalforum lead me to believe that you are unacquainted with thaat particular policy. •Maunus• •ƛ• 08:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong there, since I have no sockpuppet that violates WP standards, and my friends are not voting in the category articles: they only expressed their views in the talk page of the child sacrifice article, and very politely. —Cesar Tort 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ECT article

Am I on the right page? I always get lost around here. I have been really busy, but will try to find some time to look at article this coming week. Last time I looked at the introduction it seemed to have some US-specific stuff without saying it was US - for example involuntary ECT (very different situation in UK). And sine-wave, majority of hospitals in Spain for example use sine-wave. So tag was good idea.Staug73 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes: WP is a labyrinth.

Above I called your attention to this one: [41]. —Cesar Tort 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chess rating

Retrieved from User talk:Eleland:

Hi Eleland,

You were right: I archived some threads in the SRA page prematurely.

I see in your user page that you play chess. I'm just curious: do you have FIDE rating? Mine is 2109.

Please continue doing the good work.

—Cesar Tort 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never played an "officially" rated game; I did play rated games on Free Internet Chess Server but the ratings aren't exactly comparable. My FICS standard time control rating peaked at something like 1800, my blitz rating at 1400. Currently I have no standard rating and my blitz rating is only around 1200. I throw away a lot of strong positions on inexplicable blunders (I mean, so does everyone, but me even more than average) and I've no patience defending lost positions (I'll resign when down a piece for nothing, which is really inexcusable at my level of skill.) Ah well :) Eleland 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

dissociative disorders

Hi.

I've noted you added links to Dissociative disorders in some articles. I was curious if the article did not exist already; I mean, in your copyedits it turned out red in the articles you edited because the second word ("disorders") should be small. Otherwise it appears red: Dissociative Disorders.

You may answer here or in my talk page if you wish :)

Welcome again to Wikipedia.

—Cesar Tort 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cesar Tort, thank you for the observation, now I understand what you mean, and will address the issue, when I have time (I wasn't so aware of Wikipedia being so case-sensitive, until recently!). The article 'Dissociative identity disorder' seemed quite wordy, so I changed 'Dissociative Identity Disorder', 'Dissociative Disorder', 'Borderline Personality Disorder', 'Post-traumatic stress disorder', to acronyms 'DID', 'DD', 'BPD', 'PTSD', for an easier read. However, not sure whether readers less familiar with the acronyms, could find the acronyms (and article) more difficult to comprehend? I'd be interested in your opinion, and may post the question on the discussion page. --Standardname 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Ross

Retrieved from FT2 talk page:

Thanks for your copyedits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. I wonder if you may want to take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy? —Cesar Tort 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - it's not perfect but I'm glad you liked the edits made. I just took a look at the article you suggested -- what a mess! As it stands, it reminds me a bit of edit-war fallout zones in other articles. I can try to draft a balanced set of edits to it, and hope these find favor, but it's a messy one for sure! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is that I am going on a long trip this Friday and don't like much to wikiedit in internet cafes. I may be available today and Thursday but then I will take a wikibreak. —Cesar Tort 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse and mediation

Would you care to post at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Propose formal mediation, where I have asked if involved editors might agree in principle to formal mediation? <eleland/talkedits> 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned on the satanic ritual abuse talk page that I am prepared to mediate, because at least some people would immediately start another hate campaign against me. Therefore I have told Eleland that he can count on me, if Wikipedia wants me to mediate. I contacted Eleland, because he mentioned me as a candidate mediator on the sra talk page (15.1).

However, when you compare my mediation proposal on Elelands talkpage with his reaction on my talkpage, you can see that he misinterpreted everything I have said. The reason why I proposed to give him addresses and telephone numbers from the people I mention in my article about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, is not that I want to recruit friendly allies as Eleland alleges, but that I want to give him and other editors the opportunity to talk or correspond with people from the Netherlands who are well informed about the discussion there. Those people are critics, mpd therapists and some with a more neutral stance toward the phenomenon.

My offer to mediate still stands. It is up to them if they want to do something with it. I will not participate on the sra talkpage, because I do not have the time for it and I do not want to discuss any longer with people who do not strive at consensus, but are only interesting in pushing their own biased point of view.

If you like that, we could correspond through email.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Criminologist1963. I'd much appreciate mediation. If I understand policy correctly, if people reject it the next step is arbitration? Cesar Tort 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is indeed the next step in the real world. However, I have no idea if arbitration is possible within Wikipedia. If arbitration is considered, I would appreciate it very much when the arbiter also looks into the way people contribute to the discussion on the talk page. The tone of their contributions is sometimes not only hostile, but also damaging for me, for other critical and neutral editors and for acknowledged experts on satanic ritual abuse in the real world.

One of the most controversial editors is an Australian postgraduate student who calls himself Biaothanatoi. When you take a look on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biaothanatoi, you will see that I am not the only one who is not amused about his contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_4#The_Netherlands_section ánd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_4#Criminologist1963.2C_Tjalling_Beetstra.2C_and_self-promotion are examples of his continuous personal attacks and unfounded accusations.

I think the discussion about satanic ritual abuse would be much more civil and effective, and consensus would be much quicker reached, when editors like Biaothanatoi were not allowed to edit articles on Wikipedia anymore. I sincerely hope that a future arbiter will look into this matter.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cesar,

Arbitration is possible on Wikipedia but it only relates to personal conduct, not to the content of articles. So going to the arbitration committee would not necessarily solve the problems on Satanic ritual abuse. However, frankly, I think some editors have been so disruptive (misrepresenting their sources, etc) that ArbCom might be willing to look at it anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" scandal

[As I have expressed neither interest in, nor disagreement over, this scandal, and as I can see no relevance for the issue (Biopsychiatry controversy‎) on which I do disagree with Cesar Tort, I am moving this to his own homepage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]

Hi Hrafn.

Since you seem to have concerns about NPOV issues, it occurred to me to point out to you what has happened in another article.

A few months ago Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) was a pretty decent article. Then some POV-pushers arrived and turned it 180° around. What drove me out of my wiki-break was the feeling of outrage that such a thing could have happened in Wikipedia. Unlike our present discussion in Biopsychiatry controversy, it’s a controversy between the lunatic fringe and what the overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists maintain: that the SRA craze that happened in America, the United Kingdom, Australia and other Western countries in the 1980s and 1990s was a phenomenon of moral panic, analogous in some sense to the witch trials of the 17 century Salem.

The McMartin preschool trial is the paradigm of such with hunt in the 20 century. Just to give you an idea about the level of preposterous claims we are dealing with let me state that claims at the McMartin trial involved "witches flying in a hot-air balloon" and "orgies at car washes and airports, and of children being flushed down toilets to secret rooms where they would be abused, then cleaned up and presented back to their unsuspecting parents". Due to leading questions by misguided therapists, the kids also "recalled" being taken into an underground cavern beneath the school, flying through the air and seeing giraffes and lions!

As you can see, unlike the academic controversies about psychiatry-related issues, this is quite different. Though a neutral admin is trying to discuss with them calmly, I gave up arguing with the three POV-pushers in Talk:Satanic ritual abuse. I am no wiki-lawyer anyway. But I am dismayed that a previously NPOV incarnation of the SRA article has been hijacked by these people; and that the present article promotes their fringe view.

Mediation seems to have been rejected by some parties. What can be done with such article?

Respectfully,

—Cesar Tort 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit neutrally with reference to sources - I was pretty extensively involved with this page and thought it was trickling along towards being decent and even a RFC on the whole page. It has since splintered into a partisan free-for-all, with no real reason. Editors were agreeing to disagree, and calmly and slowly the page was coming together. I never saw a need for mediation and I'm not surprised it failed. WLU (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if you compare the present article with a version of, say, August or September, it is fairly clear that the minority view now reigns in the article. The POV-pushers are simply ignoring the fact that the majority view, that of the crimonologists, is that no forensic evidence at all has been found for these bizarre claims. If the article is not fully reverted to a more saner version, this can only mean that the fringe editors have won the day. Curiously, the SRA subject picks my interest more than the ongoing discussion in the psychiatry-related articles... Cesar Tort 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people disagree about the neutrality of page and the cultural phenomena that it discusses, the page was locked. The important thing is the use of sources; if the 'POV-pushers' have sources that possess some reliability, then the page should reflect this. Assuming that it doesn't exist and ignoring sources that say it does is not NPOV. SRA is an absurd and ridiculous claim requiring an improbably successful conspiracy and criminology journals discussing the phenomena are probably the most reliable sources available, but the minority position still has substantial amounts of information published. Not all of it is crank publications and self-published crap. It's far from the tiny minority position that is barred from inclusion per WP:UNDUE and it's easy to verify the opinions of believers. It may not be true, but it's definitely verifiable. The polarization that's occurring on the talk page is preventing the 'POV-pushers' on both sides from accepting any version of the page. Pulling up a couple pages from July, August and September, I see far fewer references, huge swaths of text that are unreferenced and unsourced claims. Compare to now - large numbers of inline citations (104), the specific claims have newspaper articles attributing them. It needs trimming, but I'd say it's an improvement. Because it's not 100% skeptical doesn't make it better. Verifiability, not truth. And now I'm going to stop hijacking Hrafn's talk page. WLU (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is precisely the point. I will give you an argument I already advanced a few months ago in the SRA talk page.

I happen to know the large libreries, such as the American Society for Psychical Research, that have thousands upon thousands of books and peer-reviewed journals (by parapsychologists of course) that promote the belief in the paranormal: extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis. Fortunately, in the past I have seen that the skeptical view regarding the purported psi ability pervails in WP's articles. It pervails despite those thousands of pro-psi publications, some of them written by academics and scholars.

On the other hand, the tragedy I see in the SRA page is that there are no very knowable editors about the SRA subject editing in that page. I for one have only read a freelance writer's stupendous, albeit rather long article debunking the McMartin "tunnels" [42]. I've also read a book by a professor of religious studies, Dave Frankfurter's, which demoinstrates that the 1980s and 1990s witch-hunt in America was pretty similar to the witch-hunting of previous centuries. In other words, I am not a scholar on the subject.

The situation we have in the SRA article is similar to the following scenario. Imagine that three professional parapsychologists hijacked an article, say, ESP, and that the WP skeptics are not professional skeptics on the subject of parapsychology. So they don't have the pertinent literature at hand. In fact, one of the skeptics who tried to stop the believers' take-over of the article stated in talk page that he didn't have the money to buy some skepticsl books about SRA to rebut the believers' view, though he knows by google-search that the skeptical view is overwhelming among criminologists. The same with me. To boot, we don't have that sort of motivation to spend so many hours of our precious time to gate-keep the article from the minority viewers' hijack.

In fact, one of the pov-pushers who believes in the above-mentioned lunacies states in his user page that his objective is to edit the SRA article from his own pov. Like the other two, he is willing to spend the enormous amounts of time that we simply don't have.

I urge those editors concerned with the "due-weight" policy to read the above-linked article, The Dark Truth About the "Dark Tunnels of McMartin" by John Earl. It's all too obvious that what we are dealing in WP is something as preposterous as UFO abductions and so-called "past-memory" therapies. All of them, including the SRA claims, have one thing in common: the false memories were implanted on patients (in the SRA case on toddlers) by self-appointed therapists who happen to be True Believers in the reality of the phenomenon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means that, in this case, the sources must be restricted to recognized academic journals (unlike the Journal of Psychohistory that these guys mention); to the universities' press, and to publications by FBI memebers.

So I stand to what I said in the SRA talk page: the present incarnation of that article can do a great harm to Wikipedia. I iterate that, in trying to deal with these people, keep in mind that the vast majority of criminologists and sociologists maintain that SRA was a phenomenon of mass hysteria or moral panic.

Cesar Tort 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Satanic ritual abuse. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

How to win the Satanic ritual abuse debate

I will try again after the holidays, Biao hasn't edited since the 20th. Also I responded to your comments at my talk page, Cesar. <eleland/talkedits> 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from Eleland's talk page:

An idea has occurred to me.

Recently an editor, in my opinion misinterpreting NPOV’s due weight policy, removed lots of well-sourced sentences in Biopsychiatry controversy arguing that the authors, even though they are scholars with academic posts, represented the minority view within academia.

If an editor can remove sentences from well-recognized academics (an erroneous interpretation of NPOV as I said above), why can’t we just remove the paragraphs from the books and texts by the lunatic fringe who are the sources of those now editing the SRA article??

We may simply appeal to the WP policy “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. The 1980s and 90’s SRA were indeed extraordinary claims: a kind of 17 century Salem witch-hunt. As I have iterated elsewhere, the SRA article must convey the view of mainstraim academics, criminologists and sociologists (not of pop psychologists and credulous therapists). We can use all the force of NPOV’s due weight and the extraordinary sources policies to win this battle.

There’s no question about it.

—Cesar Tort 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority views belong in Wikipedia, unless they're the views of a tiny fringe. While guys like Finkelhor, Noblitt, etc. are plainly nuts, they do have qualifications and academic standing, and they've published. Their claims can and should be included in the SRA article. The problem comes when we write an entire article to the Roland Summit position and systematically exclude or marginalize mainstream views. Biao in particular has been playing a shell game, coming up with a dozen different reasons to exclude analysis of SRA as a social phenomenon, and only allowing a "skepticism" section which rushes through the entire corpus of SRA moral panic literature, slowing down only to dote on those views that Biao can use as a strawman, such as a highly obscure paper connecting "temporal lobe epilepsy" to SRA allegations.

Two weeks ago I thought this would be hammered out in mediation. Now I'm less sure; I'll try again on an RfM after the new year, in case editors are on holiday. After that, I now believe ArbCom would take this. There's a line where POV-pushing and tendentiousness moves from a humble content dispute into outright abuse of Wikipedia, and I believe some editors have crossed that line. In fact, I'll go and informally ask some arbitrators where they think that line is drawn now, so I have a better idea of how to proceed. Stay tuned. <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland Summit is such a crank that he stated that several US government agencies were involved in SRA conspiracies. Please read the John Earl long article about the “dark tunnels” of McMartin. It pretty much demonstrates the level of lunacy of Summmit and other conspiracy theorists.

I had planned to take another wiki-break but this is a serious subject. As you know, I write about child abuse. Summit et al are a major embarrassment for our child-protection movement.

If they do indeed take this case, let me know if I have to say something to ArbCom.

—Cesar Tort 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sahagun citation

Hi there. There's some confusion over where exactly an episode currently written about in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article is referred to in Sahagun's works- see this discussion on same at the article's talkpg. You recently added in the citation, so would appreciate it if you could clarify the source/edition/passage etc over at the talkpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don’t remember where the “new weds” claim came from when I massively copyedited and cleaned it. But the number of the page is the correct one. I already modified the article accordingly. Cheers and happy new year :) —Cesar Tort 06:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

[The below discussion comes from another user's talk page:]

Go to ufowatchdog.com, click on "Hall of Shame 1, scroll to the 7th listing there. That is the one about Philip Klass AND CSICOP. Ignore the bathroom joke, and click on the underlined matter there. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really interested that much in the subject; it was just an excuse to remove an improper tag in a talk page. —Cesar Tort 06:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

THAT info on there is part of the new dispute regarding a source used as evidence to criticise "believers", paranormal investigators, yet, evidence found on the same site cannot be used AS evidence to indicate that the SAME site also criticises Skeptics as well. Why is that ? Someone even had the nerve to ask if Philip Klass was CIA for crying out loud, because of the claim made by the Robertson Panel to "REDUCE" intrest in UFOs and the like. UFO Watchdog does in fact criticise BOTH SIDES. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Biopsychiatry controversy

I rewrote the lead per WP:BRAVE. Could you do your thing with it and/or do you have any sources that can be augmented? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bélmez faces

Apparently there are two towns known as Bélmez in Andalusia: Bélmez in Córdoba and Bélmez de la Moraleda in Jaén. The article for the former said it was the location of the famous haunted house, but the article on the Belmez Faces seems to imply it was in the latter Bélmez. Since you were there, which Bélmez was it, the one in Córdoba or the one in Jaén? Thank you. 24.149.185.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right: it's the "La Moraleda" Bélmez. Thanks for editing the article. —Cesar Tort 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

Concerning your comment on my talk page - you were responding to joshuaZ, and he will not see your question unless you post it on his talk page. As for me, right now i just have some questions and am trying to get a broader group of Wikipedia editors to look at the article and comment. But if you want to respond to any one of their comments (like JushuaZ) you have to do it on their own talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies! He replied to you on my talk page! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

requests for comment ....

... are supposed to be unsigned. Please see our policy on requests for comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'tsalright. Wikipedia has a lot of policies! I don't think a healthy person should know all of them! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

See AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychohistory. Wryspy (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

positions

I've read your user page, please read mine. we ought to understand each other. DGG (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we already understand each other :) How would you evaluate Psychohistorical views on infanticide. Is it really OR as one editor tagged it? —Cesar Tort 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorical views on infanticide

The article looks a lot better now I think and I only see maybe two minor issues: (1) Some of the language is a little 'clunky' which is an eay fix that I can try to work on and (2) It is generally recommended that criticism be interspersed throughout articles rather than have its own section, this is somewhat minor though. Anyway, good work DM! --Woland (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woland. I appreciate your comments (what means "DM" by the way). Since I am an obvious advocate for such views, and I think in Spanish, not in English, perhaps it would be better if another editor does the proper changes. Yes: why not be bold and do it yourself? :) Cesar Tort 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try at some point, this semster is currently kicking my ass and I only have a few minutes on any given day and I prefer at the moment to work on anthropology related articles.

As for 'DM,' see here.--Woland (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fountain House

Hey, I am going to start merging these pages as a project. Does it sound interesting to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have technical problems with the merging, leave me a note. —Cesar Tort 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrad reverting his talk page again

Just a heads up, he keeps reverting and not listening to policy. *sigh* Zidel333 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Added his comments back into the Golden Plates talk page with strike through. Hopefully he won't take them out again. Zidel333 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}}

I started my wikicareer almost two years ago and, for the first time, the look of all en:wiki pages (computing "interphase" is called in our Spanish-speaking countries) is almost plain. I have checked up the es:wiki, where I also have been an user, and everything looks perfectly OK.

Is there a problem in the English Wikipedia right now, or could this be my PC problem?

—Cesar Tort 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a preferences problem. Try going to this page, and see if it works. Good luck! Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It "works" but —:

Personal tools

   * Cesar Tort
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

—are curiously placed at the bottom of the page (for two years they appeared at the top and looked far more elegantly. I have made a point-by-point comparison with my es:wiki "Preferencias" (Preferences) and unless I missed something it seems that all the boxes are marked just the same. es:wiki looks as I have been looking it for two years. And I also checked the French wiki and it looks good too.

Thanks for your prompt reply anyway,

—Cesar Tort 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. I don't see any javascript tools that can be affecting that... Soxred93 | talk count bot 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your prompt reply. I will go now to an "internet café" to check and see how en:wiki looks like there... —Cesar Tort 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in the café right now and everything looks fine from here. At home I couldn't even see the "Quetzalcóatl" image that appears at the very top of my User Page. I will now return home and see if the "interphase" has been fixed by now. —Cesar Tort 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Back to home) Oh! It fixed itself! Shall I remove now the "help me" template above or leave it as it is? Thanks a lot for everything, SoxBot. —Cesar Tort 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Retrieved from Woland's talk page:

Hi Woland. Re the copyedit "Its occurrence is well documented" in Ritualized child abuse I agree with your removal. Originally I was tempted to state something like "Unlike the 1980s and '90s SRA claims, its occurrence is well documented". But I thought that would be provocative :) Cesar Tort 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. What is important in articles is to simply take information from the references and not to add extraneous information that may well be true but is unneeded. Now if there were some controversy about whether it occurred then you could add something like, "In such-and-such source person x argues that it is well documented."--Woland (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict in Satanic ritual abuse

Sorry CT, I hit an edit conflict replying to the same person and wiped your reply out. Would you mind terribly replacing it for me? I know it's my fault, but I'm trying to keep on top of my watchlist and SRA is starting to make my eye twitch. WLU (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Next time you can re-add the removed post yourself. It's always in the memory of the history of the page. :) Cesar Tort 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm having a stressful day otherwise I would have replaced it. It's hard to keep my cool when we keep getting hit with the same crap. Personal experience is irrelevant to wikipedia, no matter how much it matters to you. Now repeat and type that out a couple dozen times. Grr.... WLU (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You just copy it from the talk page's history and paste accidentally removed post your previous reply to another editor who had made a similar point before. :) Cesar Tort 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost 19 000 edits - I lose track what I said to who, when. Dotage comes to some of us early... WLU (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from Woland's talk page:

I just wanted to mention that the reason why the above article was created is explained here. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading that was what actually led me to the talk page that I commented on so my concern still stands. I agree that we'll have to wait to see how that page evolves, but I just wanted to express my feelings as an editor about it.--Woland (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ritualized child abuse

CT, the article is clearly a POV fork from SRA. You've explicitly stated your intention to shift content from SRA to this new article in order to bypass your failure to gain consensus for your views at SRA. I've listed the article for deletion:

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ritualized child abuse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritualized child abuse. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaothanatoi (talk • contribs)

A thought

A thought about ritualized child abuse - the cases like Waco, Texas, Jim Jones and the Zion case discussed here are cases of ritualized child abuse, in which individuals believed that their sexual abuse of children was justified or necessary via their status as religious prophets. Being careful of OR, this might be a further direction to go with the page. Were I to write it, I would place much emphasis on contemporary allegations and incidents, with the Incan sacrifices becoming a historical footnote briefly summarized (in part because I don't think the JPH is a great source - doesn't mean I'm right, just that I wouldn't use it). Doesn't mean you have to, just my opinion. WLU (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: you focus on the present cases in the West and I on the ancient —or tribal cases in more recent times. (BTW, the Robert Godwin quotation I placed in talk:ritualized child abuse about abuse by the ancient Incas was not published in JPH or in any other publisher related to psychohistory.) —Cesar Tort 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The only reason why I'm really commenting is because I'm a micro-manager at heart, not because I really care or can see myself contributing. Sorry about that, I'm just not interested. Regards wiki policy and the WP:5P, I think the above comments are the direction to take this page in to make it the most encyclopedic it can be. WLU (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call, there's no reason you can't add it in the future when you've got better verification. WLU (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some tools

I'm not sure if you're aware of them or not, but I noticed on your SRA edit adding the Frankenfurter book that your template was a bit off. Here are my humble suggestions for what I consider to be the most useful citation tools. I've diberry and the google search tool for months and they are excellent, the ISBN database is a bit quicker and more thorough than amazon, which I used to use to find ISBNs.

• Citation templates
• Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
• ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
• pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubemd or ISBN

Thought you'd find them handy. WLU (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub page for ye

User:Cesar Tort/Personal sandbox

Knowing how to create sub pages would probably be helpful CT. They're very handy and it's ridiculously easy to do. If you are drafting a page, want to work on a deleted page or otherwise need a little pocket for your wikithoughts, they're invaluable. WLU (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: in fact I have another subpage for psychiatry-related issues. I moved the page you just started here. —Cesar Tort 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

You wrote in your edit summary, in part: "this article is about *secular* antipsychiatry.". [43]

I agree with your reversion, because the conspiracy theory about psychiatrists is a fringe part of what is already fairly fringe. But I don't (think I) agree that the article is exclusively about secular antipsychiatry. I think it's about it wherever it happens, including in religions if they're sufficiently influential.

I also don't want to misinterpret you, since there's only so much room in the edit summary. Are we basically in agreement, or is there something we should hash out here?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, CRGreathouse, you see there are no less than three Scientology anti-psychiatric articles in WP and only one secular antipsychiatry article (the Biopsychiatry controversy article was recently butchered). We must follow a WP policy to avoid "content fork". The only way to follow it properly is to avoid unnecessary overlap among both kind of articles. The info that User:Wikiiinfo wants to push is taken from CCHR's DVD. In fact, he mentioned it in talk page some days ago. There is a whole section in article about the big differences between the two camps: secular and religious. If the line is broken in the lead, as Wikiiinfo is doing, future editors will use Scientology as a straw-man argument to attack a secular movement which started since the times of Daniel Defoe: long, long before Hubbard was born. —Cesar Tort 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to parrot the CCHR. (My personal bias here is that I distrust the 'church' of Scientology.) And as I said, the point that was added should have been removed -- I would have removed it myself. But the article already discusses the religious side as you mention, so I'm not sure what line you're trying to draw exactly. Do you want to remove the section and the many mentions in the article outside the section? Do you want to leave mentions in, but not discuss more than a minimum, leaving that to {{main}} links?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you mention three articles. That seems excessive. What are they? Is there any talk of merging two or three of them? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No: I don't want to remove the Scientology section in the Antipsychiatry article. I contributed a lot to correct it! But I didn't start the Scientology & psychiatry articles and I am not editing them anymore. —Cesar Tort 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Wikiiinfo seems to be editing in good faith. However, I dislike his most recent (minor) edit. The phrase you edited some time ago ("Secular critics do not share these views") is much better. —Cesar Tort 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psych edit conflict

This may be the first time I've ever had an edit conflict where the two versions were exactly the same. My edit summary was going to be

differentiate scientologists from secular: the point of this paragraph is to point out where they are different, not that they are the same!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! I'm afraid that my own edit summary was a bit more aggresive. —Cesar Tort 06:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

THe problem was with a broken (unterminated) ref. Rich Farmbrough 18:20 12 March 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing it. —Cesar Tort 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory [permission]

I need your permission to use sections of the Psychohistory page for a report. If you could grant me this use I would greatly appreciate it. I tried changing parts of they Psychohistory page so that my proffessor would accept it, but it keeps getting changed back. If I could have your permission to use it, I would be very grateful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotir2005 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The material of the article is not copyrighted. Neither I nor any other editor owns it. If you want to publish it in another source it's ok. If, however, you want to do major changes, you have to give your reasons in talk:Psychohistory. —Cesar Tort 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide article

Hi Cesar. I've seen the great work you're doing on the article, good job. I'm going to take this one off my watchlist as it's getting too fully for the time I have. Can I trust you'll be watching it yourself? I have had bad experiences not watching an article for a while only to find out some months later that a 12 year old has peed all over it and nobody has noticed. Of course, there may well be others maintaining it as well, but I've no way of knowing without asking people directly. Richard001 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Yes: it's frustrating that any silly person can mess with an article that has taken lots of work from us. I am writing the final chapter of a book on psychohistory and that's why I am researching infanticide. I may finish the infanticide chapter of my book (in Spanish BTW) in about three months, and I'll be editing the WP article as well. Yes, sure: go ahead and unwatch it. I'll keep an eye these months until I finish it :) —Cesar Tort 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no strict limit on article size, but we try to keep them reasonable. The infanticide article could and as it grows should be split up. But the section on animals is a must have. It needs improvement, as it's currently just a copy of the lead at the main article (hence there is nothing to merge there). It needs to draw closer connections between human and animal infanticide, as human infanticide is, after all, just a subset of the former. Richard001 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"No strict limit". Hmm. And what about "content fork"? I mean why not just reduce the paragraph to an absolute minimum? —Cesar Tort 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Belmez Faces

Out of curiosity, what do you believe to be the cause of the Belmez faces? How did you debunk the paranormal claims? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research I believed they were genuine. A year after that I changed my mind: most faces are product of an acid, a fake. I still have to add the reference to my article published in Skeptical Inquirer. —Cesar Tort 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Whom do you believe was behind the hoax and why? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult question. Someone in the family. The mayor of the city, a believer in the phenomenon BTW, told me "Son gente mala" (they're bad people), if I remember correctly, referring to the owner, María. —Cesar Tort 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Torture

Hi Cesar, someone mentioned a lack of world-wide focus on torture and for some reason I thought of you : ) I've got a go-to guy for medicine, creationism, and now apparently torture. Congratulations, you've become my official personal subject-matter expert.

Slightly more seriously, there's a discussion over at Talk:Torture#History about the lack of non-European info regards torture. Any chance that in your manifold research on all things psychohistorical you've found something that could be used to expand the section? WLU (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put my two cents in, by writing a paragraph in that part of the Talk page. —Cesar Tort 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The scene of battle

Hail Cesar :) Though its tents are somewhat tattered and its fires greatly dimmed, the camp of anti-psychiatry remains IMHO worthy of sturdy protection. For, of all the new priesthoods, it's difficult to think of one where the disparity between the respect generally accorded it, particularly among the unsuspecting throng, and the perilous nature of its underlying precepts and consequences is as demonstrably chasmic as psychiatry. Your contributions on these topics I find most edifying; thanks for drawing them to my attention, & many thanks also for your kind words of welcome. For the reasons just stated I reckon it's worth continuing to tweak. Kind regards, Wingspeed (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And this year I abandoned a battle here... —Cesar Tort 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bibby

Hi CT,

I've started reading through the index and mentions of SRA in Bibby (Bibby, Peter A. (1996). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Aldershot, England: Arena. ISBN 1-85742-284-8. ). I highly, highly recommend it. It's treatment is very readable, very neutral and even handed, covers both sides of the SRA debates when it comes up, and features lots of discussion of ritual abuse. I might use it to expand the page you created in the future - there's a huge amount of discussion of the modern debate of ritual abuse, sequelae, evidence, I'm very impressed. It would greatly inform the page I think, and I'm very pleased to have it as a resource for SRA. It mentions Lanning BTW, twice. Awesome.

And thanks for the barnstar! Socratic. Excellent. Socrates would eat me for breakfast...

WLU (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Alas, $140 in Amazon books is beyond me for the moment (and in fucking Mexico those kind of books are unavailable from libraries). Hope I'll be moving out of this fucking country soon... Cesar Tort 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)