User talk:SmithBlue/Archive 1

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.

Race and intelligence

Thanks for you comments on the talk page, I think that you are absolutely right about the article not having enough information about how this research has been used. I have made some changes that I hope will improve it, both to the main article and to this article: Race and intelligence (Utility of research) There is still a lot of work to be done... if you aren't still busy, I'd love to have your help on this project. I've found a few sources and made some suggestions here: [1]

Hope to see you around! futurebird 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, welcome... I hope you stay around to help edit this article. I feel a bit overwhelmed with the project, to be honest. I'm always glad to see a new fresh eye on the scene. futurebird 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to read

The talk page is pretty useless at this point. It's mostly arguments going in circles. What really makes a difference is adding sourced information and adding sources to information that is already there. And watching out for the sneaky ways people try to delete content that clashes with their thesis. futurebird 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell curves

[[Two Curve Bell with Jobs.jpg|thumb|300px|A single bell curve like these two was featured on the cover of the controversial^[1]^[2] book on race and intelligence The Bell Curve. Some regard this book as solid science, while others consider it a modern example of scientific racism.^[3]^[4] These are idealized normal curves comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981.^[5]]] They used to have a caption like this... but, it's been removed, I don't want to get in to an edit war over this, but don't you think that if these curves are at the top of the page, they need a little historical context? Another question is if the curves are really representivitive of the content of the article at this point? It'd help a lot of you'd share your thoughts on issues like this at the talk page. futurebird 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

If you come across any data in studies that you think would make a nice graph, let me know and I can plot it out and make it look pretty for wikipedia. I don't have any means of searching papers except for this: http://scholar.google.com/ it's free, and I've found it to be a big help. futurebird 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two Curve Bell.jpg

Please weigh in on this IfD [2] futurebird 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

GONE DANCING

This editor has Gone Dancing For now the attraction of non-virtual reality has triumphed. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. SmithBlue 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan riots

ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Najaf and Satellite image website

Thanks for the website link for the Satellite image and the Battle of Najaf (2007) article. I'll have a look at them some time. Fantastic4boy, 28 March 2007

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment

A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. David Lyons 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pain and nociception

Better? If you've got a better way of improving the wording, go ahead. It would have been easier for you to just do it, had you had a better way of clarifying things, I'm at the limit of my knowledge. WLU 10:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SB,

I don't really know what you're asking me for on my talk page with your newest post, as far as finding a professional goes, they're usually hard to come by. For further improvements, there's always WP:RFC or requesting input from WP:MED. I've put in a request at WP:M, so maybe that'll get some attention. WLU 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a request for help at WP:MED, and you're name is on it! Hope you don't mind. WLU 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I have replied to the comment you left on my talk page. Honestly, while I appreciate your suggestion and opinion, I do not agree with you. I quoted said vandalism for various reasons which I have outlined in my reply in an effort to defend myself. Whether you deem them 'good' reasons or not, is a matter of opinion. The reasons are as they are, and at the time I deemed them good. Personally, I'm really not worried about random people taking quoted graffiti it out context and jumping to conclusions about me. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that intent makes something hateful or offensive, not the words themselves, and I did not quote them with ill-intent towards anyone. But as its presence bothered you, and enough time has passed that my edit is no longer the current one, I have removed the quoted graffiti from my comments. Thank you for your input. -- Dee 12:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

test refernece

thrhsCite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

Happenings

Sorry, rather busy, but I do have some suggestions. WP:EA is a good place to find an experienced editor who can give advice, if not necessarily join in. You'll find a more activist group, I think, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. And if that isn't sufficient, you might check the index - try "Assistance", "Content disputes", and/or "Personal behavior". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RMT

The term "Recovered Memory Therapy" ceased being controversial years ago. The exact term can be seen in many of the recent sources on the RMT page, and is used within the legal community and by forensic psychiatrists, etc. Not to mention reputable publications such as Scientific American. If it was still controversial they wouldn't be using it. This has been discussed at length on the talk page. Cheers MatthewTStone (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking most of the text about the term RMT out of the article altogether. Much of it was added to address the criticisms of one or two editors who claimed the article was biased, and it was necessary to provide balance. It's largely irrelevant. But if it is retained, I'll try and find a source that says it was once controversial. MatthewTStone (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I've put a response to your note re unsourced material – in the recent Daniel Santos comment. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the effect of unsourced material in a Wikipedia

Unsourced material prevents other editors from checking factual accuracy and reliability of source. This prevents WP:WEIGHT being discussed and assigned knowledgably, which in turn prevents NPOV occuring. The major content editing mechanisms of Wikipedia are destroyed by unsourced material in an article.

The Wikipedia reader is presented with unverified (except by the inserter of unsourced material), unverifiable material from an unknown source. The emphasis place on the unsourced material is also unverified (except by the inserter of unsourced material) and unverifiable by the reader. Two options open to the reader are: 1. Be disempowered and accept the absolute authority of a single editor, or 2. Reject Wikipedia as a collection of unsourced opinions.

Unsourced material will also dilute and obscure properly edited, verified, weighted and NPOV material.

The policies and mechanisms of Wikipedia are designed to produce an accurate authorative encyclopedia;- unsourced material prevents this from occurring.

If producing an article only from sourced material can not satisfy an editor, that editor is free to publish satisfying material elsewhere. SmithBlue (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editor wrote, "In general, I find the ^{[citation needed]} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes ^{[citation needed]} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)" SmithBlue (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks

Hiya "Sir". How goes it? I put 'Mercenary' under occupations in the infobox I added for Messer Hicks due to the fact that allegedly, according to the BBC at least, he admitted having worked as one for the KLA during the Serbian War in the Balkans. If someone fights for anybody, guerillas or government army that is not their own nationality (any not loyal to the Queen in the case of Commonwealth citizens), they should technically be descrbided as a mercenary... I will leave it up to you to decide if it is too tenuous an allegation. check it out here: [3] Rac fleming (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary

Indeed it is illegal for Australian's to serve with any military or para-military organisation other than those loyal to the Queen, ie any of the 16 Commonwealth nations for whom she is still monarch. Apparently (so I have been told by a colleague who served in the Australian Army) they have to give up Australian citizenship to serve with US forces. However it doesn't stop it from happening, nor them working as mercs. Quite a few members of Sandline International who worked in New Guinea were Aussies, and quite illegal for them to do so. An intriguing case is the poor Aussies who are dual citizens with countries which have compulsory military service, such as Lebanon and Greece. It is illegal, as Australians, for them to serve in those nations military forces. But as dual citizens, both countries expect compulsory military service, and more than once Australian born men have got off the plane expecting to visit the 'old family' ony to be thrust into a uniform for 12 months. Sometimes forcibly. And they are very much breaking Australian law to do so!

It is a poorly defined occupation I guess. So I will go with your definition, and we will leave it off. I think him fighting for the KLA makes him a mercenary, but until I find a better definition that conclusively supports my case I will leave it. Have a good day.

Rac fleming (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I note that you are in what appears to be an d edit war with Prester John on the David Hicks article, you have reverted 3 times please consider yourself cautioned about WP:3RR and that you may be blocked. Gnan garra 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

issues with your fellow editor

Dear SmithBlue: I had recently come across a very difficult-to-obtain primary document relating to the OPV-AIDS matter, which is not in the collection of any university library in the Boston area but a young researcher found an online copy for me on an obscure part of the WHO website in Geneva. Contemporaneously, I discovered that the National Library of Medicine added a whole new group of back journals to their on-line resources, apparently at the first of this year (there are many copyright issues involved that they apparently had to resolve).

Most scholars of the "vaccine wars" of the 1950s-1960s, whose polio-based combattants included Sabin/Salk/Koprowski/Lepine/Cox, point to the policies extending from this 1958 WHO document as largely driving the outcome of this "war"; only the vaccines of Sabin & Salk really met all the requirements the WHO laid down with these 1958 guidelines. One significant concern of the expert panel were worries about contaminating viruses that might be getting into polio vaccines.

Six months later, Sabin found a contaminating virus in Koprowski's polio vaccine being used in Congo, which he first brought to Koprowski's attention privately, but when Koprowski rejected Sabin's written entreaties -- Sabin then inserted his analysis into a major paper he was preparing for the British Medical Journal, which was published in March, 1958. It was a big deal at the time, and I wished to bring this forth too, as it is very relevant to the AIDS-OPV debate.

Anyway, wishing to share these reference "finds" with other Wikipedia users -- I spend some time composing a couple of paragraphs and getting all the citations correct and the links proper, giving no editorial comment, only some background. For balance, I added a few words from, and an actve link to, Koprowski's self-congratulatory review of his ten years of work on polio vaccines, which he published in the British Medical Journal in 1960.

Yet within hours, your fellow editor, MastCell, just eliminates the vast bulk of my contributions and many of the carefully crafted links to on-line and fully cited archival materials at WHO and NCBI. Previously, I have tried to engage MastCell on the discussion page -- but he always seems to have his own dogmatic (and out-of-date) point of view and he's sticking by it, no matter what. The gorilla DNA data I have cited do not sow doubts in his mind; the back-stepping of the primary investigators involved calling for a complete reanalysis of the phylogenetic classifications of HIV-1 doesn't make any difference -- I can only think he doesn't understand what these data imply. Instead, he repeatedly cites rhetoric published in journalistic (not peer-reviewed) articles and editorials in Nature 7-8 years ago and entertains little else.

Well, I myself have published in Nature as sole author on matters relating to DNA phylogenetics -- and I can assure you, the dogma of 7-8 years ago is not the thought of today. We are now just coming to a partial understanding of retroviral immunity through miRNAs and some totally new genetic mechanisms that are involved with HIV-1, which affect the earlier analysis of HIV's origin profoundly. This is surely "original research" which I make no attempt to mention in any of these Wikipedia entries; my collaborators would be quite angry with me if I did.

But well-accepted matters I do mention to MastCell that come straight from the pages of peer-reviewed journals but do not agree with his own interpretation instantly gets branded "original research" by him (in Wikipedia's sense) whether the journals cited are from last summer, last year, or half a century ago -- even if my argument mainly consists of direct quotes from the original authors!

Given MastCell's previous mindset and my lack of time to engage in endless (and fruitless) debates -- is there simply some higher authority to which to appeal? I have written my point-of-view on this recent matter in the discussion page but I know intransigence when I see it, thus I am not expecting that to resolve anything.

I wish I could be more respectful of MastCell but he/she has been less-than-respectful to me. It's not that I am not willing to modify my text to address concerns, but wholesale elimination with a brief (and disparaging) analysis is improper.

Any advice you might offer will be appreciated. Theophilus Reed (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue: Thank you for your kind and understanding comments.

In regard to contaminants in vaccines -- from 1960, following discovery of SV40 in the Salk vaccine, to around 1995, when PCR-based (DNA) screens became widely used -- contaminants, particular viruses, were probably the #1 concern of vaccine makers and regulators worldwide for those vaccines made in tissue culture (i.e. polio, influenza, MMR, yellow-fever, etc.; virtually no vaccines introduced after 1980 are of this type). My old boss at the FDA has devoted his scientific career to this matter of increasing vaccine purity; in 2004, he was appointed by the British Parliament to his second term to the board that regulates all vaccines and biologicals made in the UK.

Thus pointing out the early concerns regarding contaminating viruses is surely appropriate. Polio was the first vaccine to be made in flask-based tissue culture (as opposed to chick embryos inside eggshells) and involved human or monkey tissue; most investigators of the 1950s didn't understand the potential biological "fire" they were playing with at that time. Salk, Sabin, and Koprowski all made mistakes, and each had contaminating viruses at one point or another in their preparations.

Fortunately, Salk's protocol was very conservative, such that the SV40 contaminant was generally inactivated (killed) before innoculation. Otherwise, the approximately 10-30% of Americans born before 1962 who received his SV-40 contaminated IPV vaccine would likely be suffering increased morbidity and mortality today, which they do not. In regard to Sabin's strains -- he eliminated the SV40 contaminant before the first approved preparation circulated in 1963, although there is some question about his strains used in Soviet-made preparations through 1980.

Anyway, I can more fully work this matter in to the historical documents (it is already described elsewhere in the article) and cite proper sources, for example: CDC site.

However, I know of no published response to Sabin's finding with the CHAT contamination that Koprowski made at the time, although I could cite a subsequent publication where he simply claims that his preparation was free of viral contaminants but without describing his assay methods or results. Already, there is a publication cited from Poinar et al that is the main scientific "refutation" of Sabin's finding -- but that work from 2001 never assayed any actual vaccine used in Congo, only several experimental preparations from the US and one from Sweden, thus it doesn't really address the issue at hand.

But these contamination matters in the 1950s are all key to the OPV story. Furthermore, I would prefer to cite the primary sources rather than the secondary ones such as Hooper's, simply because that is my style in general, and although Hooper is scholarly and quite competent -- his works carry baggage with some individuals.

In regard to the status-quo arguments refuting the OPV hypothesis -- I believe those are in a bit of flux, with what seems to be a bit of a breakdown between the younger, clinically oriented groups of the Belgian/French/UK/US consortium and the older-line PhD-trained PIs, who collectively created the whole "bushmeat" hypothesis around 1999. I think the younger/MD folks are increasingly coming to believe that fundamental misunderstandings in the origin/nature of HIV-1 has partly caused the scientific community to spin its wheels for a decade in developing an effective vaccine for HIV-1 and better treatments for AIDS; meanwhile, the pathogen is evolving into more virulent recombinants in some areas, such as in west/central Africa. But the older folks are sticking by their guns.

I will have to review that part of the article to think about how it might be improved in a way that I find not to be less than honest yet still advocate the status quo.

Meanwhile, how would you suggest I even try to work on such a text without attracting MastCell's edits?

Again, thanks for your prompt attention to this matter.Theophilus Reed (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue:

I thank you for your attention to my concerns, and I have looked at the sandbox you have linked. Clearly, you have devoted lots of effort to improving the current article.

Unfortunately, I do not know if I have the time to work, in the short term, with such a major revision, as I have truly "original research" to do on related matters, as well as other professional concerns to which I must attend. Also, I think a narrative form, where one brings the reader down an informative path that is easy to read and comprehend, might be better for a casual reader than a timeline approach.

In regard to your devil's advocate points -- there aren't many records remaining from the 1950s about the CHAT campaign, which is rather odd, for there is an abundance of archival stuff relating to most major vaccine campaigns of this period, including frozen or lyophilized samples of the preparations in question; I've seen entire rooms of Sabin's archival material at Bldg 35 of NIH, for example. It's almost as if the record regarding CHAT has been "cleansed" -- to the point where relevant journal articles have been torn out of the bound volumes in the stacks of numerous medical-school libraries.

I know this sounds a bit paranoid and conspiratorial -- but virtually no records remain from all the research that went into a major vaccine effort, other than about a 10-20 papers in serial publications of the time that one can still find in various venues, a significant fraction of which I have already referenced in the Wikipedia entry. This is not normal; at the very least, there should be a large collection of laboratory notebooks of Koprowski and his colleagues -- but none have ever surfaced, despite an expert committee's supposed investigation of these matters in 1992-93.

Bear in mind that there are corporate and university interests that would suffer huge liabilities if this hypothesis should ever be proven; it is these forces (not governmental ones) that I would point towards regarding the odd situation surrounding the OPV-AIDS hypothesis. Clearly, the university and corporation where Koprowski worked at the time of the CHAT campaign are two entities with such worries (there are others as well) -- and their potential legal liability is obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with corporate or tort law. Ed Hooper has been bearing legal threats from these entities for years, and a number of prominent scientists who once engaged in this debate withdrew around 2000-1 under various forms of professional pressure.

In other words, what drives the anti-OPV forces are not so much scientists or senior investigators worried about their reputations; it's pure money, plain and simple, as no corporation or institution wishes to be held liable for causing the AIDS pandemic.

Slowly, these pressures have been lessening in recent years, as the corporate forces largely "won" the debate in 2000 in the minds of most scientists, particularly following the untimely death of Bill Hamilton of Oxford University.

Yet some younger, more clinically oriented scientists now seem frustrated with a lack of scientific progress and a general unwillingness to follow obvious leads regarding HIV-1 pathogenesis; the frustrated ones seem to be the research-oriented MDs who actually have to deal with AIDS victims. In a paper published last summer in the Journal of Virology, for example, a whole group of them showed data that the basic taxonomic organization of HIV-1 classification appears to be in error -- which means the very foundation on which the published phylogenetic analysis (and the "bushmeat" hypothesis) are built has serious structural problems.

Note that I too wish to lay low until more progress has been made in specific ongoing investigations regarding alternative interpretations of HIV phylogeny, thus I do not wish to get too involved in any high profile debate right now. Too much activity could attract unwanted attention and limit possibilities for scientific investigation.

Instead, what I had been hoping to do was make primary scientific resources readily available to curious investigators at all levels, combined with a good-quality and accurate descriptions of the overall hypothesis. There is a good chance that in 1-2 years' time, a variant form will come to the fore once again through peer-reviewed publications.

As this situation develops, wouldn't it be especially good for Wikipedia's reputation if it could serve as an independent and accurate source for important on-line information that helps drive society's interests forward in these regards without resorting to any sort of advocacy or other "agenda" different from Wikipedia's stated ethos and standard rules? Rather, simply the free exchange of up-to-date information and relevant data links would help get this done; no "original research" is required, as plenty of data is already available in the literature to explicate the circumstance.

If you actually analyze the papers that MastCell is fond of citing -- you would realize that despite the prestigious venues involved, the bushmeat hypothesis is based on fairly flimsy evidence, including a "molecular clock" analysis that is generally considered discredited today when used in other applications.

Their best data is the analysis of several archival samples of CHAT experimental materials analyzed in Svante Päabo's lab in Germany in 2000-1 -- but the stuff they analyzed is not the actual vaccine used in Congo; rather, the only known independent analysis of the actual vaccine used is Sabin's work of 1958-59.

Note it is also clear that certain details of Ed Hooper's hypothesis are likely in error -- you don't need actual chimpanzee kidney cultures to get the contaminating virus, for example, it can come through the serum routinely used in the culture media -- but detailed scientific points like this last one might legitimately be deemed "original research" thus wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. Yet that error in Hooper's thesis is a legitimate criticism of his hypothesis and leads to the main genetic argument against him (i.e. the P.t.t. vs. P.t.s. ancestral form of SIVcpz being closer to HIV-1).

Facilitating the free exchange of accurate information already in scientific record is my sole agenda in this regard; note that governmental and WHO forces are also trying to make available on-line the relevant archival materials. Rather, it is largely self-interested corporate forces that continuously try to suppress this hypothesis, intimidate scientists, and clean-out libraries. You may not believe me in this regard -- but I think if you could get Simon Wain-Hobson, or David Ho, or Omar Bagasra, to speak candidly on this matter, their stories would shock you, as the pressures on them have not been subtle. Why do you think the Australian sociologist, Brian Martin, has devoted so much attention to studying this matter?

Yet bear in mind that 40 million people worldwide are infected with an incurable retroviral disease right now, which may grow to 80 million within a decade; already many tens of millions of people have died prematurely. It is immoral to knuckle under to largely parochial corporate forces who don't wish to be held liable for malfeasances from half-a-century ago that appears to have set in motion one of the larger tragedies of human history, as it stymies progress that might better address the situation.

Rather, as Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote and Justice William O. Douglas oft repeated, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant". It's hard to say what "justice" will ultimately be in this matter, but the suppression of relevant information by self-interested corporate forces and their old-guard allies is clearly a profound injustice for humankind. Theophilus Reed (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Smithblue: Thank you for your kind words and concerns; hopefully, there will be more progress in the future. I appreciate your many efforts, plus the additional contributions of Tim Vickers to the editorial process. Tim's home page shows him to be a PhD-level biochemist with interest in tropical diseases, as well as head of a molecular/cellular biology project at Wikipedia. He might serve as a valuable resource in the future, should the recent sorts of issues arise again; he seems quite open-minded, which might appeal to you and me, yet very attentive to the rules, which should appeal to MastCell.

Anyway, I'm having to research/write a lot about gene expression and cellular metabolism in my own professional pursuits right now, thus I may not find time to look at the OPV article soon, but I will try to contribute something before long. I see you have a call for improving the contrary arguments; perhaps I can contribute there with a better synopsis, which perhaps would help ameliorate the situation with MastCell. Theophilus Reed (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

`{{helpme}}`

"""It should be pointed out that negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate." .... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)""

Is this accurate? If you dont know how do I find out? Seems unbelievable that I can't dicuss how to deal with an editor who is not following WP:Policy. SmithBlue (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are so many possible answers to that. I don't think that I would have blurred the line between inserting POV and bringing an article to NPOV like that. You may find some answers at WP:GAME. I think the distinction he was trying to draw lies in openness and transparency. If you are openly trying to find better ways for editors to collaborate, independent of any specific content issue, then that is clearly a good thing. If you are trying to come to an agreement on a specific content issue, then you should probably involve uninvolved editors in dispute resolution rather than consulting only people whom you know already agree with you. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thank you for the encouragement with regard to my planned article on the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. I've been very busy with work relating to Honoré de Balzac, but knowing that someone out there wants me to work on the Timor page will convince me to push myself in that direction. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Help request

On David Hicks editor PrestorJohn began to edit mispresenting the content of sources. [[4]] and [[5]] on January 13 and 14 2008, apparently within period mention in this block [[6]]

A separate matter on David Hicks: User:Skyring/Pete replaces "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" or "by the US gov for involvement" using edit summs "(Not our place to judge. We report the facts.)" ,00:50, 23 January 2008, and, "(Remove opinion. See talk.)"18:23, 23 January 2008. Between these edits, Skyring displays lack of knowledge of issues [7]"Only if the charges are or were dismissed by a competent court can we call them invalid. You've got the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid? No? Well, don't presume to force your opinion on our readers, please. -- Pete (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)".[8] On explaination of sources editor calls wording confusing. [9]And continues to delete/revert.

When asked to explain how the wording is confusing Skyring responds, "...But giving our readers the impression that he was just an innocent swept up by the military and tortured into confessing is giving an incorrect impression, and SmithBlue's wording leans towards that. A reader might think that he was held for five years without any charge at all...." When these concerns are specifically addressed editor replies, "Strawman. I said that your changes "lean toward" a certain view. I didn't say that you went all the way there, now did I?".

The statement, "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." - Skyring 16:22, 25 January 2008 - appears inaccuarate and deliberately misleading. I can find nothing in the archives to substantiate a consensus on the intro that took "without valid charge "into account. I have asked for diffs but not supplied. Perhaps Skyring's comment "The version to which you object has the advantage of concensus, even if it is concensus by default because no editors objected enough to change it.", is meant to address this request for diffs?

Am I dealing with a disruptive editor in Skyring? What can I do so that I am not wasting time editing like this? Are there procedures that deal with editing as shown above? Anything else I would be better off considering? SmithBlue (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the other editors' point of view ('without valid charge' could be argued, regardless of sources), I don't think Skyring is being disruptive; he is being courteous and open to opinions, at least from what I can see on that article's talk page. He seems willing to collaborate on the article. That's my opinion, at least. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - just checking that claiming consensus over a specific issue and suggesting a fellow editor search through archives to find that non-existent consensus is acceptable to you and within the bounds of WP:POLICY? SmithBlue (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would also have appreciated a suggestion on PresterJohn apparently editing while blocked. SmithBlue (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK"

Hi Stifle, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response. "Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case. (At least to my eyes)

If you don't find interest in looking at this please suggest where I should go.

This is not a content dispute. Nor is it a dispute over reliability of source. My concern instead is that the behavior that Prester John and Skyring/Pete promoted durring this dispute make working collaboratively a futile exercise: Accurate representations of sources is presented as unnecessary and, in addition, correcting, discussing and then finally lodging an ANI is presented as "disruptive".

(re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)

Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.

Misrepresenting edits

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I am also open to feedback over what I could have done better/differently. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I fear that consensus is against you and you are attempting to frame a good-faith content dispute as an editor conduct issue, which it isn't. Their interpretation of sources is no less valid than yours, and they are continuing to discuss on the talk page. I think a consensus will arise out of this and blocking people would be counterproductive.

I have warned Prester John about his edit summary usage, but that is all I am going to do. Your next step in dispute resolution would be to file a request for comment, and the instructions for how to do so are on that page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear advice on the next step. My understanding was that the content of a source had to be accurately represented in an article. So when a source says "the US government accuses and alleges" we can not replace that with "he admitted to" or "he did this ..." while citing that source. However I see that many of my fellow editors think otherwise which puzzles me greatly. If you have a simple insight that would illuminate my darkness I would appreciate it. Thanks again for your concision. SmithBlue (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that filing a request for comment would be the best way of resolving this for you; the mediation cabal would also be an alternative. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Administrators do not have any special authority to decide who is right or wrong in a content dispute (while they can participate in such discussions, their opinion carries no more or less weight than anyone else's). The dispute resolution processes exist for exactly such cases. An article request for comment, or requesting mediation, is often helpful in resolving such situations. Mediation, especially, can help return a discussion to civility and center its focus on content and sources rather than editors. I would certainly encourage you to use these resources in helping to resolve the dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SmithBlue. I was going to say more on this earlier and didn't get around to it. Also, I'm not sure if you had seen my latest comments, some time ago, on my talk page.

Suppose a user believes that certain statements are verifiable but can't find the source right then. The user might have seen a source previously; the user might just insert the information without even saying that the user believes it's verifiable. Suppose later on, a source is found and confirms that the information is correct. In my opinion, it cannot validly be argued that the user had ever violated WP:V in this matter -- even in the case of a WP:BLP. It may be correct for others to remove the unsourced information, but in my opinion it was not wrong for the user to insert it. Repeatedly inserting the same material would be editwarring and would therefore be wrong, but inserting it once (or perhaps a small number of times) would not be wrong. That's my opinion. Others may have different opinions on this. I hope this helps to reframe it as a content dispute. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When I read WP:VER it states "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This appears clear and allows editors to collaborate - one editor can check the accuracy of anothers work and improve or correct it. It also allows misrepresentations to be challenged. A reader also can check for accuracy and more information. What you suggest above "(or perhaps a small number of times)", makes working collaboratively impossible - in this specific case an editor has repeatedly misrepresented the sources cited and when the misrepresentation was pointed out argued that they were under no compulsion to provide an accurate source. A reader of the article would be mislead as to the content of the source and then if they looked at the content of the source would dismiss WP as unreliable and misleading.

Moving on to WP:BLP I find "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy." The material you say is OK to insert falls within each of the 3 criteria requiring removal; The material was unsourced as no source provided supported the mateial in the article, secondly, no accurate source was provided for the material and so it was not verifiable, and thirdly, presenting "accusations and allegations" as "admitted" or "widely accepted facts" is a "conjectural interpretation" of the sources given.

I am amazed and worried - WP:POLICY appears very out of touch with how many experienced users and admins act. Maybe WP:VER and WP:BLP are widely viewed by many experienced users and administrators as irrelevant - that is the picture I am beginning to get. Which leaves a situation in which, for reasons described above, collaborative editing is impossible and WP becomes inaccurate and misleading. Thanks for presenting your view, at least I can now see how this could be viewed as a content dispute. But that view ignores WP:VER and WP:BLP and worse helps destroy the collaboarative foundations of WP. This "content dispute" view needs to be challenged. Please show me how to effectively do so. SmithBlue (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You're right. I thought WP:V contained the word "attributable" somewhere; it appears I was wrong, or possibly I was thinking of an earlier version of the policy, or got mixed up about another page (e.g. Wikipedia:Attribution, which is not a policy page.). The word in the quote from WP:V you provide is "attributed," not just "attributable." This clearly means that if material is likely to be challenged, then one must provide a source at the moment one first inserts it. I think one can still argue that the person might not have realized that the material was likely to be challenged; if it was reasonable for them not to have known it was likely to be challenged, then I still don't think they need to be rebuked or anything. However, if they've been told to avoid inserting controversial material into a particular article and they keep making this mistake repeatedly, then that does look like a policy violation. Also, once someone else reverts the change, then it has been challenged, so it would be wrong of them to re-insert it without providing a source at the same time. I'm sorry I got this wrong the first time through and am glad we're having this conversation to straighten things out.

By the way, one option you might try is posting a question about this to the talk page of WP:V. I can help you word it if you like: it's important to make it concise, as some of the policy talk pages are pretty busy and readers of that talk page may not have time to read everything so it helps to get the information across quickly and clearly. If you post a question there, I think it should include at least one link to an example of where this has happened. Strictly speaking, the talk page of policy pages is not for that purpose, but at Wikipedia talk:NOR, questions about specific situations are posted from time to time and generally well-received, I believe; I'm not sure the situation at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability but I imagine it's similar. You should read any notices at the top of the page before posting. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig - thanks very much for continuing with this conversation. I was beginning to think that I totally misunderstood how WP:VER worked - beside the 2 editors involved in the original issue, the non-action by admins on ANI, maybe ?AGK, Stifle, SeraphimBlade and your good self all seem to have viewed this as a "content dispute". (And maybe it will yet be shown to be one in some way that I don't understand at present.) I am no longer greatly concerned about the original issue - now I am concerned that WP:VER and WP:BLP are not being actively promoted by administrators - or maybe my presentations of the issue have not been clear or maybe that clarity got lost in a snow job conducted by the two other editors involved in the original issue. So I am not sorry that you got things "wrong" the first time - rather I am very gratefull that you shared details of how this issue could be seen as a "content dispute" and allowed discusion to develop. You now seem to be treating WP:VER as highly relevant which is a weight off my mind.

Regarding a question to the talk page at WP:VER - nothing on the talk page forbidding real-life cases - however while I like the idea, I am not clear what question you are suggesting be asked. What exactly would you suggest asking?

On a separate note I see that the editor who repeatedly misrepresented the sources (PresterJohn) is a subject at WP:WQA. I don't see much to be gained by adding my concerns there. What is your view on this? SmithBlue (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's like if somebody clearly violated 3RR, with their last edit 10 hours ago ... the admins will simply do nothing and think you shouldn't have even brought up the issue, because it's in the past. Only if the last edit is recent, i.e. within maybe the last hour or two (or something like that) they do something about it. I think the problem with the issues you raised is that there was no problem going on at the time -- you were raising things from the past. (If it's something other than 3RR it may be considered current even if it concerns edits a day or two ago, maybe, depending on the overall situation -- that is, whether there's actually a problem at the present time.)

Sorry, I have to go now. I should answer you more tomorrow -- remind me if I forget. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the role of administrators to enforce policies such as WP:VER. I think ordinary editors such as you and me do that (and administrators acting as ordinary editors). OK, maybe admins do particularly enforce the policies to some extent. I'm not sure. If admin action is required, it would be for something called "disruptive editing" or something, not violation of WP:VER (I think). We're still back to considering these things to be content disputes, in a sense. You see, it wouldn't be good if admins were to go around blocking people for posting things that violated WP:NPOV etc. If that were the case, then admins would have too much influence on what type of bias exists in the articles.

It's interesting that someone has reported the user to Wikiquette Alert. Clearly you're not the only one noticing this stuff. Re the username: depending on how disruptive you consider the username to be, you might want to report it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention according to Wikipedia:Username policy and see if admins will force the user to change the name. That would not solve the whole problem, but if the username is one small part of the problem it would fix that, and it would also give you one more thing you could refer to every time you bring up the subject: i.e. you say "This is a user who previously ..." and you list AN/I reports, the Wikiquette alert, a username change if that happened, etc., as background before describing a specific situation occurring at that time.

Here's a way to proceed: Whenever the user does the disruptive behaviour (i.e. posting controversial material without providing a source), you can put a simple message on the user's talk page asking them not to do that, and citing WP:VER. Try to get different users to do this at different times, i.e. one message from you about one incident, one message from another editor about another incident, etc. Each should be right around the time the incident occurs. I might participate, but you might have to alert me that something is happening. Then after at least two or three rounds like that, the next time you notice that the user has just done it (a short time ago, e.g. maybe a few hours or less) you can do another AN/I report, briefly listing links to other AN/I reports, the Wikiquette alert etc. as background, listing the message on the user's talk page asking the user not to do that, and describing the current disruptive edit. If you still don't get much response from admins, I would do exactly the same type of AN/I report again the following time the user does something like that. I think eventually something will come of it. Sorry -- I'm making it sound as if it will take a lot of patience. Maybe it will. Or maybe the user will change his behaviour in response to your messages. Or maybe the user has already stopped? I don't know. Also: I'm just making this up. I don't know whether this way of proceeding would work well. It's just what I think I would do under the circumstances if I were you. I haven't tried it. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I think a key part of the above procedure is to mention a specific page or well-defined group of pages in each message. Only when the same behaviour, which has already been warned for, is repeated in the same already-mentioned group of pages do you escalate it to AN/I. Again, just my advice, and I'm not an expert on this by any means!

Another option: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. However, I think the first step there is to list things that have already been done e.g. AN/I reports, so it might be good to wait until after another AN/I report has been done; or maybe the AN/I report that's already been done, plus the Wikiquette alert, plus I think you've already had talk page disccussion with the user, might be enough. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig - the Wikiettiqurtte seems to have been lodged by a sock-puppet - but that is contested.

PresterJohn also features at [|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)] which includes that assertion "In his sandbox [1], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [2]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap."--Agha Nader

Will reply to your latest post in more detail shortly. SmithBlue (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK

You categorize this issue as a content dispute.[[10]] Have you read the discusions I have had with PresterJohn and Skyring that I referenced in my original post to you?here on the article talkpage and archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations I ask "Please tell me why you categorize this issue as a content dispute?" SmithBlue (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but telling me the same thing again and asking for a different answer will not achieve anything. I recommend further consultation with the community on your content dispute, either by way of a request for comment, or the Mediation Cabal. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask for a different answer. I explicitly asked "why you categorize this issue as a content dispute?". You are of course under no compulsion to share your reasoning. However to frame my request for information on your processing of this issue as "telling me the same thing again and asking for a different answer" is inaccurate and remarkable. If you have better uses for your time I do understand. SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I categorize it as a content dispute because it is a dispute (which I believe is common case) and because I believe that the underlying cause of the dispute is what content should or should not be included in an article.

I am sorry, but I will not be responding further on this issue as I have said all that I have to say. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort, I do appreciate your suggestions. I am still trying to understand how this can be seen by so many experienced Wikipedians as a "content dispute". Hence the request for information on your process. I should have worded my request more clearly.

User:Agha Nader at [|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)] wrote "In his sandbox [1], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [2]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap."

Found this today. I will seek further advice from Agha Nada. And keep in mind the possibility of 3 WP admins being correct that this is a "content dispute". SmithBlue (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not putting as much time into this as I might have. I have a lot of projects going at once and might have to start setting priorities :-) I had previously read parts of some of the conversations you referenced. Just now I've read the two links you provide above, in their entirety. Here are some comments.

Numerous people are telling you that this is a content dispute. Please seriously consider the possibility that they are right. Also, try to put together a very clear, logical argument that it is not a content dispute (while defining what exactly the word "it" refers to, and what exactly it is if it is not a content dispute).

I said you were right that WP:VER requires that for controversial material, a cited source has to be provided the moment the material is introduced into an article. This doesn't logically imply that it's not a content dispute. Content disputes very often, perhaps usually, involve citation of policy to support one side or another of a dispute -- sometimes each side is citing policy in different ways. Just because a policy is involved doesn't mean any special action from administrators is required.

I encourage you to get your arguments more clearly organized. I suggest the following form: first a single sentence stating the thing that you want to convince people of, for example "Prester John should stop inserting controversial material without simultaneously providing a citation that supports it". (This could be worded better; if such a citation is already in the article that should be good enough. You need to carefully re-edit your sentence to say exactly what you want to say, be clear, etc.) Then, a list of points supporting this statement. Each point could also be one sentence; and each point can itself have supporting material. For example, one point could be "Policy WP:VER states that ..." and a quote of the policy. You can lay out your arguments and diffs in point form in some organized way that makes it very easy for people to either just read the main points, or study the diffs in detail if they wish. Diffs should usually be diffs to specific comments, not to a whole conversation, to save time for the person trying to follow your argument. You can provide a background section with links to whole conversations for those who are interested. Note how the Wikiquette Alert post is organized. Someone can read the points, and may choose to follow diffs only for those points they find difficult to believe or are particularly interested in. More soon. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the talk page link you give above, you repeatedly say things like "This discusion is about accurately reflecting the content of sources." This is a weak argument, because it's not directly supported by policy and because one individual doesn't get to dictate what a whole discussion is about. You can state that the point you are trying to make is whatever. Others may be making other points, and it's a good idea to not only try to get your own point across, but also to try to understand the points other people are making. I'm not aware of any policy stating that articles have to "accurately reflect the content of sources." Information has to be verifiable. It's similar, but it's not quite the same thing. Accurately reflecting the content of sources sounds to me like something someone might do in a book review or something -- something that's focussed on the source. Wikipedia articles are not focused on the sources; the sources support the article, not the other way around. You need to base your arguments on precisely what the policies actually say. Then your arguments will be much stronger.

In that conversation, it's not clear whether you are or are not challenging the statement that Hicks trained with al-Quaeda. If you wish to challenge a statement, it's a good idea to state that clearly: "I challenge the statement that ..." As soon as you do that, then the statement becomes a statement which is "challenged", and a certain clause of WP:VER becomes clearly applicable. However, if you believe that a statement is true, then I don't think you can challenge it in good faith. If you're not challenging it, then it would be helpful to others if you would make that clear at the beginning by saying something like "I'm not challenging the statement, but ..." rather than leaving everyone to guess what's going on.

Regardless of whether you believe it's true or not, WP:BLP requires removing unsourced contentious material. You need to cite and quote the appropriate policy more often, rather than stating things like "This discusion is about accurately reflecting the content of sources." which is just your opinion, not a policy. (And you would have to argue that it is "contentious".)

The conversation failed to focus on what seems to me to be the key question: did you (as a group) or did you not have a source that verified the contended statement? Someone said that you could check out any of a large number of sources in the article and they would not dispute that Hicks trained like that. However, that's not the point: the point is, is there or is there not at least one source that establishes that he did train like that? And if so, give an example of such a source. That is what you needed to be demanding.

I agree with you on this: you can't just ignore the word "allegedly" just because newspapers use it a lot or something. The word is there for a reason and has a meaning. A source with a statement containing the word "allegedly" is certainly not a verification of the same statement with that word removed; that would be almost like deleting the word "not" (a word which also happens to appear frequently in written text, for good reason.) However, there is no requirement that the Wikipedia article represent the source or use the word "alleged" -- for example, if there are other sources that verify the statement without the word "alleged".

You apparently said on that talk page, "Ummm.... I have not disputed that many reliable sources show Hicks training with AlQ." Given this, it seems possible to me that the statement that Hicks so trained is not a controversial statement, and therefore only needs to be verifiable, not necessarily to have a source actually supplied. Also, if this is the case, then it seems to me that one option you have would be to find one of the sources and improve the article by inserting a footnote, rather than criticizing other editors for not having done so. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: When I talked about "accurately reflecting the content of sources" above, I was trying to make a subtle point about the difference between your wording and the wording used in policies, and about the difference between a book review, where the focus is on the book, and a Wikipedia article, where the focus is on the article with the source being something supporting the article rather than something being showcased. I guess my main point really was that if you use the same words in your arguments as the words that appear in the policies, your arguments will appear stronger. I didn't mean to imply that it's OK to use a source inaccurately.

I suggest carefully reading or re-reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:IAR (and WP:WIARM) and WP:NOT because you might find some things in there that will be helpful to refer to when making your arguments. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

EAR

Hey. I tried to reply to your request at WP:EAR. If you have follow-up questions, I beg you to keep them short. I hate reading. Just kidding, but seriously think "concise". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

talk page protocol

Sorry about adding new discussions to the top of the page (I assume you're talking about the page on pain), I'm new to this. I'll change it right away. Thanks for the tip Zickx009 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pain

I replied on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Timor torture photo

Yes, I've tried to advocate for their use, but given the photo's uncertain status, I expect it will be removed. If only it had been staged, we would know who took it! =) Thanks for the offer of help. – Scartol • Tok 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW

The WP:MCOTW is pain and nociception. It is on the list because of the note you and WLU left at the project's open tasks. It would be helpful if you could leave a note on the talk page about what you'd like to be addressed in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements

Hi SmithBlue,

Just wanted to say that I don't mind disagreements with rational people (such as yourself), although you are hereby warned that I'm always right, I know everything, the universe does actually revolve around me, reality is required to conform to my POV, and so forth. ;-)

I'm also dead tired and going to sign off for the rest of the day. My hope is to spend this week doing something useful with pain and nociception (I feel a bit responsible for it being the MCOTW), so our infant formula discussions may have to wait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Medcab

Hi, thanks for your message - I wonder why a medcab is needed, several editors have put some good arguments justifying the inclusion, and 3rd party editors in response to the RFC also support inclusion mainly because of reliable sources and verifiability. Those who want it to be included are justifying based on wikipedia policies while the other(s) want it removed because "They think" or "They feel" it's "not right". However I will be ready to participate next week, if it's still needed. thestick (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. thestick (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Hi, just stopping by to say thanks for taking the time to give your opinion on the situation. Krawndawg (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics and Science

Hi SmithBlue,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I too agree with what you're saying and I think part of the problem that you were referring to was my lack of experience of a) being aware of the proper dispute resolution mechanisms b) writing an appropriate request and c) promoting a scientific CAM viewpoint which does means certain editors must confront their own bias and perhaps rethink their POV of certain CAM professions and procedures.

I have a rather simple question and perhaps you can help me out. I'm having a debate with an editor regarding the inclusion of various peer-reviewed research papers for a CAM article I edit and the argument is that because mainstream medicine is the dominant model, that its POV should be weighed moreso than a 'minority' point of view of a separate profession primarily because it has less members practicing it.

My question is, why does scientific evidence written by scholars (PhD) in a CAM discipline not get the same weight as scientific evidence written by scholars (PhD) in allopathic/conventional/mainstream medicine? Specifically, I'm being told that in the article Chiropractic, chiropractic forms the minority POV and a study I want included cannot be used because the editor says it does not meet WP:MEDRS. I think this is a completely bogus argument and absolutely need to take this up somewhere but don't know what the best venue is. Now, for clarity, I'm not "against" the editor (there's no incivility, personal attacks, etc going on) but I really have a fundamental problem with a medical doctor telling a chiropractor what can and cannot be used in the chiropractic article, citing that his profession has "dominance". My argument is it's science vs. science, and chiropractic should cite the experts in chiropractic, which are chiropractic researchers (DC, PhD). Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I think we're getting near the end of the road with major revisions and cleanups to Chiropractic and trust me, once it's relatively well rounded I'd be more than happy to stay away from it (or at least pull back) for longer periods of time. The nice thing about bringing the article up to scientific par is it making it significantly harder to vandalize and toss is potentially inflammatory "conclusions" or "statements" without having a pretty good source to back it up.

I have read WP:NPOV and I think there's an excellent case now to revise the weight of mainstream science against alternative science. One scientific POV should not really trump another, so long as there is an established literature base for the alternative meds to draw from. 20 years ago this would have been highly problematic; now, not so much. It reflects the maturation of SOME CAM professions and an embracement of evidence-based medicine principles. So, I'm gearing up for this if we can't resolve the dispute however I do know that I have been emailed by several editors who believe the time has come to have a frank discussion about NPOV in alternative med articles and lay down some updated guidelines (or policies though they are more strict and leave no room for interpretation or wiggling). Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a short comment here. There is no "end of the road" for articles here. They are never finished, no matter their quality (even FA articles can quickly be demoted and totally revised). This is all frustrating, even to me, but that's the way it is here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you'd agree that creating an environment in which editors are supported in learning WP policies and how to apply them is our best bet for long term improvement in WP. To do this an experienced editor might have to give up the power differential they possess through extensive knowledge of WP ways and assist a newcomer who has valuable time and material to contribute to an article, even if the new-comer is advancing material that the experienced editor doesn't want in the article. In my view the with-holding of NPOV: "a view may be spelled out in great detail on pages specifically devoted ..." at Talk:Chiropractic is regretable. SmithBlue (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well, I'd like to note my comment said end of the road for major revisions; I think that the new high inclusion standard set there now and getting all the major sections and revisionsimplemented, only minor, piecemeal changes will be needed in the future as new literature comes out and new sociological within the profession emerge. I really can't see there being too many more drawn out edit wars there in the near future. I think we're close to being over the hump. CorticoSpinal (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but would be willing to discuss it by email. Please activate your's. -- Fyslee / talk 06:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, I need your help...CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is very slowly improving despite random deletion of NPOV cited text. At this slow pace it will take about a year or two to have any significant improvements. Thoughts? QuackGuru 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there was about a dozen uninvolved editors to help out. I wish there was a content dispute noticeboard where I would make a little comment and within 24 hours a lot of new editors would add the article to their watchlists and participate. For now we have WP:DR. QuackGuru 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ICJ cite in Serbophobia

The information was initially removed by an anon with the comment "quotes were taken from the Yugoslav counter-claim". I was not able to verify this. Indeed, the referenced document has as its title "Order of 17 December 1997" and below that it says "The International Court of Justice, [...] Makes the following Order". To me, it seems like a court order. And even if it isn't, removing it is still not appropriate - claims by Yugoslavia are still valid example of claims of Serbophobia. So, even if this is really only a counter-claim by Yugoslavia, the text may read e.g. "The counter-claim by Yugoslavia to the International Court of Justice [5] in 1997 found acts of genocide against Serbs had been incited by...."

If you do know more than me about this, please you rewrite the introducing sentence. Nikola (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Freely available

You should be able to click on the paper's title.[11] Works for me, anyway; does it not work for you? Eubulides (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, for the references I put in, if the article's title is wikilinked then the article's full text is freely readable to all; if not, it isn't. Eubulides (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[12] - I saw the free text link on the right side of the pubmed page, above the 'suggested articles'. WLU (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)