User talk:Theophilus reed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Koprowski damages

Hi - hope you are having a great time editiing Wikipedia. On the Koprowski page you give a figure of $1 for damages - have you got a cite/source for this amount? If not it will be removed very quickly as some editors consider OPV AIDS as pseudoscience. SmithBlue 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OPV AIDS article

Hi - I am editing the OPV AIDS hypothesis article. Frankly my fellow editors and I have let so many errors of fact remain in the article for so long that I have grave doubts about our familiarity with the subject material. You seem to have an indepth knowledge of the world of vaccines. I would appreciate you having a look at the article. I warn you now that not having the article attempt to rewrite current scientific positions on OPV AIDS appears a high or very high priority for the 3 editors who frequent the article. (I know it is for me). Anyway having a knowledgable person around would help us avoid some more errors of fact. SmithBlue 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Hi - re: the recent HIV phyllogeny source in OPV AIDS article, the relevant policy/guideline appears to be; WP:PSTS: "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." If you can find a quote in the source that shows that the authors are relating their work to phyllogeny that affects OPV AIDS then we can argue strongly for its inclusion. Or if you can show that the existing and accepted sources contain arguements that (naive readers can see) are challenged by statements (again accessible to naive readers) in the new article. If I am pointing out the obvious pls excuse me.

I, unfortunately, offer myself as a test-case naive reader.

If you have time could you tell me the significance of the gorilla material? Or is the significance of the paper elsewhere? SmithBlue (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore my question re gorilla material. After reading the article slowly and resistng the urge to glaze over I may have a sensible question, "Does the evolutionary history of HIV include the timing of its crossover into humans?" SmithBlue (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content of OPV AIDS

Thanks for your comm. I have found myself very disappointed with this article for some time in regards to its reporting of developments of the hypothesis and explanation of the science against it. Some editors on WP have a great fear/hatred of pseudoscience - and see presenting a full account of the context/history of something controversial as a chance for the loons to get purchase. Please don't overvalue MastCells "wholesale elimination with a brief (and disparaging) analysis" - MastCell is an administrator with much work to do on WP - if you check his user contributions you'll see a very busy committed Wikipedian [1] - rather think of MastCells comments as a rush job?

When dealing with any fellow editor I try to differentiate clearly between abrasive/curt/taunting/supercilious/arrogant/dismissive/"ignorant of the basic facts" and incivility. I do demand civility and I do get some of the other stuff too. WP is probably like an office that has some barely civil *******s working in it. Other editors too find too much unpleasantness but it seems impossible to demand politeness. (Incivility is rather easier to spot).

I am nowhere near fluent in WP policy as MastCell but I think he may be correct in removing some of your edits on the basis of WP:SYNTHESIS - then again another more experienced editor may be able to show how you could use the sources but in a different manner. (WHO source appears a very useful external link at least). MastCell quotes "WP:SYN: combining sources to advance a novel viewpoint which those sources do not themselves reach or advocate)" - If we have Hooper (or someone else I havent found) making explicit claims re OPV and then use your sources to back these claims - this I think would be acceptable. Or if you present the sources as notable background on the topic without drawing "a novel viewpoint"? WP:PSTS: "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source".

As to remedies for your situation, (our situation), there are dispute resolution mechanisms WP:DR. I suggest that we add material to the article that clearly conforms to WP:POLICY and then proceed if necessary. If MastCell defers to policy then WPs needs are met in terms of OPV AIDS. Hope this was of assistance - let me know if I can do more. SmithBlue (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Theophilus reed, A short think and a reread of your post gives me an idea - at present OPV AIDS gives no content of the negating scientific research. If you (we?) were to include the notable highlights with their arguements we can, then at least up to 2003, present Hoopers side and confirming research publications. This would also give us a context to present WP:WEIGHT compliant cautions on the phylogenetic situation. (I suggest Hooper but if you know of someone else making explicit OPV statements then thats great with me.) SmithBlue (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have just read your post on why you dont want to rewrite the historical research section. Cant say I fully understand but that may be a function of me having more work. (humour). I dont have access to journals - are you prepared to supply me with details from articles that I request? If so I will form a basic history of the research into this topic. If at any point you want to actively edit it pls feel very free. Declining this invitation is OK with me too - my partner dont like me on Wikipedia (smile) SmithBlue (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Without in any way being smart I suggest you "add material to the article that clearly conforms to WP:POLICY". One short very relevant paragraph at a time. (And then we wait...(humour)) And even ask for MastCell's opinion. And if WP:POLICY are not followed by MastCell we start WP:DR. If MastCell doesnt move then add the next very salient piece .... etc. If you have the time and energy then now is a good time to discover what WP sees as appropriate in OPV AIDS. Blood, sweat and being disparaged is all I can forsee.(humour)
I will now attempt to play a Devils Advocate who views OPV AIDS as dangerous, false pseudoscience; "Your 20:24, 15 January 2008 edit is WP:OR as you are merely going through the liturature and selecting those sources which make OPV AIDS appear more likely. There maybe a thousand fold more studies, more modern studies, showing that exactly what you cite is scientifically refuted. What WP:PSTS demands in these cases are reliable, second or third-party sources. The reader or your fellow editors is unable to WP:VERIFY that you havent cherry-picked examples that promote your pro OPV AIDS POV."
Please contact me with any requests you have. I'll try and assist. I have begun a sandbox at [[2]] pls feel free to edit it or make suggestions.
SmithBlue (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get another opinion?

Hi again Theophilus reed, I'm not confident that I'm giving you great advice. Another option is for you add the text {{helpme}} to your talk page and someone'll come and help you out. (just type it as it looks - the code to prevent it working right now is visible in the "edit" view.) Maybe a brief description of the sort help you are seeking may speed up the process.

This at least will give you another opinion - and maybe just the right editor will turn up and point you in the right direction. SmithBlue (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fare well

Thanks for your detailed and interesting views on this topic. I can quite understand any editor not wishing to continue in a conflicted environment - (see my User page for me leaving WP alone for months on end). And having more productive things to do settles the matter easily I find. I did a little "History and philosophy of science", have read some of Martin and AC Higgins webpage application of "deviance theory" to science and so, I think, have a very open mind as to what science actually consists of.

Just want to make sure you saw this; F. Deinhardt, Lindi Databook, 1959. M.M. Vastesaeger et al.; "L'atherosclerose experimentale du chimpanze. Recherches preliminaires"; Acta Cardiol.; 1965; Supp. II; 283-297 - Hooper "sparse remaining records reveal one chimp from Coquilhatville, and one Ptt, at Lindi and the LMS." Ref exists on PubMed? but in French.

Havent heard anything about sera collection other than Hoopers kidneys. Wonderful editing with near total ignorance (smile) but at least I wont be alone in that.

I too would like WP to be presenting the content of this topic - both now and in whatever future. I hope to give full WP weight and detail to Nature's and Science's pronouncements. ("Rope!, rope!, get yah fresh rope 'ere")

All the best and feel free to drop in. SmithBlue (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP view

Hi - good to see you back already. I want to change your view of Wikipedia - maybe it will make WP an easier place to be. There is a huge on-line game , very popular, sometimes thrilling and often addictive, in which anyone can play at being an encyclopedia editor. The rules are consciously chosen, and reiterated where necessary, to allow untrusted, deeply ignorant, just literate humans to work together using info cited to reliable published sources. And the only way such people can know that something is relevant to a topic is if an expert tells them in a reliable published source that "ABC is related to HIPPO". The rules and structures are such that an artifact is produced by the players.

The aforementioned artifact is an encyclopedia called Wikipedia.

So from this you can hopefully see, if I've explained it properly, that this is like a Masters thesis - just collect the sources and present what they say about topic "HIPPO".

WP editors in general do a very poor job of educating their fellow editors. In many ways its like learning poker by sitting down and losing money for 7 nights. Cept learning on WP isnt that much fun. And so many valuable editors move away. Which I find very understandable.

As you can see your fellow editors know next to nothing about the topic - we are just applying our understanding of WP:POLICY to apparently relevant sources. And the OPV AIDS "Scientific investigation" section and statements of "refutation" reflects this "beautifully". Hoping you can find a way to make WP a satisfying experience for you.

PS: Just wanted to show you WP:Ignore all rules and WP:What "Ignore all rules" means

A thorough job on the existing material including "Suppression of Dissent" stuff could lead to a successful arguement to higher authorities that on the basis of "WP:Ignore all rules" the article is improved if it allows the inclusion of the WHO report. SmithBlue (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

That's good to hear, all the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)