![]() | 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. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I think you have good points on the CT article, but Ferrylodge and Simon Dodd will tag team to slant the article in Thomas's favor unless you start an RfC or something of the like. RafaelRGarcia ( talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this material to balance out a rather laudatory opinion of Thomas in the Recent Years section of the article, and I hope you can weigh in on its clear validity in the talk page:
In contrast, law professor Donald Wilkes calls Thomas "the most reactionary Supreme Court Justice" in decades, and says Thomas has a "proclivity for demeaning human rights." He notes what he calls Thomas's tendency to vote "systematically in favor of assertions of government power and against claims of individual liberty."
[1]
RafaelRGarcia (
talk)
04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, we should probably endeavor to raise the bar. In any case, I was serious when I said I was unwatching the page. There are enough crappy articles on Wikipedia, and I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. I don't want to spend my time here fighting about Clarence Thomas with a bunch of people who are obviously more committed to the topic than I. MastCell Talk 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Justice Thomas is often described as an originalist, as well as a member of the "far right" of the Supreme Court. [2] [3] [4]
Thanks for dealing with the LuvGoldStar account. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As we both seem to have strong opinions about this, I've asked for a third opinion in Wikipedia:Third opinion. I have to admit that I have extremely strong concerns about this issue as my wife passed two ELISA tests and so it took nine months to diagnose her Lyme Disease, which is now chronic and nearing the point of crippling her. Simesa ( talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Please, please. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was the "problem" editor at Wikifan bogus sock report. The ANI has now spilled over into a dispute between User:SlimVirgin and I. She is accusing me of Fraud and threatening to file a topic ban against me. I find this turn of events very disturbing and would really appreciate at least some kind of intervention or "weigh in" that doesn't involve me getting permabanned. Also, Slim still believes I am a member of the CAMERA conspiracy. If you don't have the time, can you recommend someone? Please? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For your enlightenment:
-- Brangifer ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I really am very conceened about the accuracy of Lyme disease#Controversy and politics. I think more needs to be done, and the section expanded (especially based on comments from others in another forum reading this article), so I've opened an RfC (which I expect will find I'm somewhat biased myself). I do want to emphasize that the rest of the article does seem reflective of current mainstream beliefs. Simesa ( talk) 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andonee_reported_by_User:Stephan_Schulz_.28Result:_.29. Great minds and all that... ;-) -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell,
What's wrong with adding the adjective 'unidentified' (or 'unnamed') to describe the climate scientists quoted by ABC news? If their names are in the referenced article, I stand corrected. Andonee ( talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
Boris, the unintended humor in what you wrote is delicious. I'll give you some time to think about it.
Getting back to my main point, if the sources are 'unnamed', they should be referred to as such. If you interpret 'unnamed' as 'untrustworthy', that's up to you. The word 'unnamed' exactly describes the critics quoted in the article, because, well, their names weren't given. Andonee ( talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
MastCell, I didn't want to just blow off your comment
here. I owe you a response but I prefer to take this off the talk page as the discussion is actually more about an editing philosophy at this point than the specifics of the Singer article.
I do understand the philosophical point you are arguing, and in isolation I can even agree with it. My somewhat inept attempt at expressing why I think it doesn't (or shouldn't?) apply in the case we were discussing comes down to this: while I can accept the philosophy you express as being a valid and appropriate goal I disagree that it can (or even should?) be applied universally and without exception. This case is a reasonable case in point. If trying to apply this principle leads us to exhibit behavior that allows me to accurately articulate the facts that I did here then I think we have crossed some sort of line because I believe that those specific facts point to something that will lead to an article that fails to achieve WP:NPOV. It is very easy for the majority (i.e. the dominant group of editors in any given article) to cherry pick sources that present things in a biased way (not that I am accusing you of that here) and a universal application of your principle will then necessarily lead to an article that nearly universally reflects that majority POV at the exclusion of a minority POV.
Can you not understand that as a skeptic when I read that very same ABC News article that I take note of a very different set of points than, say, you do? So the things that jump out at me may not be the same things that jump out at you. The unidentified nature of the scientists is, in fact, one such point. ABC was writing that article, not reporting on someone else's article. So they are the ones that chose to leave the sources unidentified. They must have had some reason for doing so, correct? I sincerely doubt that it was an oversight on their part. I don't know what the reasons are and I don't even want to speculate on what they may be, but the simple fact that they chose not to name names is significant for anyone reading that article with a critical eye.
Suppose, as a hypothetical example, the individuals in question asked not to be named because they feared being charged with defamation of character, or fraud, or something similar in response to their statement. Do you think that ABC would have printed this in the article? Not likely. They would have left it completely out and just left their sources anonymous. Alternatively, it is also possible that they selected individuals with a particular history with Singer and an axe to grind so that they could get a particularly sensational quote. Do you expect that they would have printed explicitly that they were not naming their sources because they were known enemies of Singer? Again, not likely. It is also possible that they simply told their sources that they were taking their statements off the record so that they could speak more freely. In doing so, of course, they opened the door to having them say things behind their anonymity that they would never had said publicly. This type of thing all factors into how much weight the reader should give a given statement.
Given these possibilities, in this case I think your requirement that ABC make a big deal about the anonymous nature of their sources in order to list them as unidentified is misplaced and for obvious reasons. They aren't going to rat themselves out for any questionable deeds that lie behind keeping the sources anonymous. In this case what ABC chose NOT to say is just as significant to the critical thinker as is what they DID say and I don't think that there is anything wrong with making such points explicit in our summaries. I guess YMMV on that.
A fundamental question here is whether WP:NPOV is intended to be applied at an individual source level (which is sort of your point as I understand it ... at least from the perspective of not changing the "bias" of the source) or whether it is a more over-arching concept for the article as a whole (which is more where I am coming from). I don't believe that strict adherence to the former necessarily leads to the latter. Do you?
Anyway I respect you and your point of view even if I disagree with it from time to time. So are we "good" here? I meant no offense in my commentary at Singer's talk page. -- GoRight ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The real question is, what do we do as Wikipedia editors when we think that something published in a reliable source is flawed, or out-and-out crap? Different people have different approaches. I tend to think that we need to grit our teeth and live with it, because if editors start interposing their personal evaluations of the journalistic quality of various reliable sources, then that's an extremely slippery slope.
Regarding the last part, I'll take this opportunity to apologize for being snippy. A few days ago, someone asked me on another talk page whether I'd gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. I have felt more short-tempered than usual recently; as you've probably experienced, sometimes the frustrations of Wikipedia can accumulate to the point where one is not at one's best. We're fine; I wasn't offended, and I apologize for being cranky. MastCell Talk 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, nothing.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikidashboard, also if you go to an article it shows contributors. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Better be careful in that new committee. [2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The sad thing about the resignations - aside from the fact that these are excellent people that we're losing - is that ArbCom has improved dramatically in the 3 years or so that I've been aware of it. The current ArbCom is the best so far, by a large margin, and the trend has been one of steady improvement. But simultaneously, the job has gotten to be literally unsustainable - look at the turnover in the past year, going back to the rash of resignations leading up to last year's election. We've created a job that is pretty much guaranteed to lead to burnout - in a best case scenario. It's basically a game of king of the mountain - someone ascends to the top, and then everyone focuses their energy on knocking them off the pedestal. Other successful enterprises have operated that way - the Roman Empire comes to mind - but it doesn't seem like a good model for a volunteer encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been advertising your page when I make the indicated linkrot updates. I am assuming that you do not mind, but it occurred to me this morning that it might be polite to ask. - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You may or may not recall User:Muntuwandi and the vast array of socks. The latest is User:Earl_J._Redneck_III and in this guise M appears willing to talk and to offer to behave. With your permission, I'd like to try a trial unblock to see if reason prevails William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm so used to reading poorly designed trials and shilly, manufacturer-sponsored Studies™ that I guess I got a little carried away. I was even briefly tempted to note conflicts of interest in each footnote, but that would have made the References section longer than the article (just kiding... or am I?) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, it's pretty trivial to describe the problem - one can cite everything from out-and-out promotional fraud and bias in sponsored review articles, to more subtle bias that falls under the questionable-but-not-fraudulent category. I don't think that any serious peruser of the medical literature can afford to be ignorant of authorial conflicts of interest.
On the other hand, how to handle them for Wikipedia's purposes? In a medical journal, the disclosures are given in small print at the end of the article - they're obvious for anyone who cares, but they don't drown out the text of the article. In contrast, most Wikipedia solutions would involve giving the disclosure statement far more weight than warranted by the original source - if we spend one sentence summarizing an article's content, and one summarizing conflicts of interest, we've seriously altered the weighting and (I would argue) misrepresented the original source.
Part of it may be the differing readerships. I think most journal editors assume a certain level of sophistication on the parts of their readers - they are presumed to be able to interpret the study and the conflicts for themselves. On the other hand, here on Wikipedia most of the people who focus on the issue seem driven by a need to hit people over the head with "zOMG EVIL DRUG INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA!!1!!", which speaks both to the sorts of people attracted by the issue and to the presumed lack of sophistication on the parts of our readers. Anyhow, no solutions handy, but since you brought it up, it's a question I've been pondering recently. MastCell Talk 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked, appalled and horrified that you are not on Abd's A-list or B-list. When we're all invited for cocktails and canapés in Springfield, I'll save you a vol-au-vent. Which kind do you prefer - mushroom, shrimp or asparagus? I generally avoid the petit-fours because they can contain nuts. Were you looking for a misplaced invitation on my talk page when you accidentally hit the wrong button? :-) Mathsci ( talk) 06:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I reported Muntuwandi @ socks copyright violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have taken flight from my hypotheticals:
Wikipedia_talk:SOCK#.22Escaping_bullies_or_pressure.22
MBisanz
talk
03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at ANI. I have refactored my FTN post as I agree with your criticism. All the best, Verbal chat 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over my comments at WP:BLPN and redacted some of them that I think were too harsh. [3] Let's keep discussing this in a way that might lead to a consensus. -- Noroton ( talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the laudatory Goldstein quote from the Thomas article per new comments on it, and would look for your comment on it also. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=303666698&oldid=303666241 RafaelRGarcia ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! YourHumanRights left a message on my talk page in relation to his reverted edits on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons page. I have no knowledge on the subject. The message left follows:
I have made a additions and a few edits to make the page for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons more accurate and less of a slander page against this community of medical professionals. Now I am receiving messages that my posts do not have a neutral point of view. I'd like an explanation as to what exactly it is about the Declaration of Geneva, Helsinki, and the UDHR that is somehow biased. Additionally, I'd like to know ion what grounds the proven fact that abortion causes preterm birth later in life - and thus a host of needless birth defects for future children - must be kept secret on behalf of the very partisan and biased preferences of the current author's hatred of this organization. Which of my sources are bad? The United Nations ? Wikipedia ? The Journal of Reproductive Medicine ? Or is it just sources like "Quackwatch" that deserve publication ?
— YourHumanRights ( talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain to the user why the edits were reverted, thanks, Cargoking talk 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked in an AfD, if I considered the Atlanta paper to be local media for Athens. In the strict sense of the word, no, because both have seperate markets. But I normally use a (totally arbitrary I admit) rule of thumb of a 50-75 mile radius to be "local". Atlanta is about 70 road miles from Athens, even less of an air mile radius. So they are very borderline to me. Local papers MUST cover local issues to sell papers. If there were no local news in them, people would just pick up USA Today. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Bigipedia from BBC Radio 4. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was a fairly straightforward suggestion that people could either agree with or not. Sigh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I contacted you about this last week - I realize you just may not care. But at this point there has been some lively (and startlingly unrancorous) discussion from a range of users. I am hoping I can pursuade you to check it out. You care about good content, and policies, so perhaps you can make a constructive contribution here? Slrubenstein | Talk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave_Szulborski. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrhia ( talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've shrunk/rewritten some of my text you objected to in the talk page. Which renders your response a little silly, but I didn't want to go editing your text without permission so I left it as is. For what it's worth, I am currently *using* EC. My earlier research convinced me the benefits for me outweighed the risk, so I've been taking either ECA or EC for the last three months and my results are consistent with all those studies I found - I lost over 5% of body weight, nearly effortlessly, almost all of it fat loss rather than muscle loss according to my resistance-sensor. With no noticeable side effects, which again is what one would expect from the journal articles.
I noticed in a few of the double-blind study full articles I read - especially the later ones where they were *looking* for specific bad-outcome issues - that people would drop out of the study because they experienced a scary side-effect symptom. Then at the end of the study it would turn out roughly half of those people were getting the placebo. If you see that in a study of 20 or 50 or 100 people, it seems certain that if 12 million people start taking the drug you are guaranteed to see a *lot* of negative symptoms. So the fact that the FDA *did* see a lot of negative symptoms is not really in conflict with the earlier studies., not surprising, and not (barring more careful analysis) a clear reason to avoid the drug.
Between my ability to see this particular glass half full and yours to see it half-empty, this article should be excellent once we reach a happy medium. Thanks for your help and patience! -- Blogjack ( talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Fluoride Deception is a Google Video that outlines that numerous studies involving negligible fluoride toxicity have been faked by corrupted scientists working for rich tycoons and government officials who did not want to be sued over wrongful death or injury claims.
When more recent (1990s) scientists uncover this corruption, they are fired immediately upon disclosing that fluoride is highly toxic, highly carcinogenic, acting to lower intelligence quotients of those infected, and does not reduce dental caries as claimed. Without knowing it, environmentalists fighting against industrial pollution as happened in the 1948 Halloween incident in Donora, Pennsylvania never realized that the primary fatal toxic ingredient was an industrial release of fluoride / fluorine gas—a fact that was covered up by PR releases by government officials at the time—overriding what other toxicologists had discovered and reported.
Description is as follows:
Could you please review and comment on this. Thanks in advance. Oldspammer ( talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a pro-fluoride advocate - I think you could argue that it's probably overkill to fluoridate the water - but I'm turned off by the ignorance, paranoia, and conspiracism which still dominate the anti-fluoridation rhetoric. I understand the temptation to demonize a specific chemical or biological entity, to point to it as the cause of the myriad ills of the modern age. It's a natural human instinct. If you don't believe that fluoride is the root of all evil, feel free to take your pick of Epstein-Barr virus, Lyme disease, thimerosal, the MMR vaccine, the underwire bra... The world isn't that simple, and human biology certainly isn't. That's my opinion. MastCell Talk 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I think you have good points on the CT article, but Ferrylodge and Simon Dodd will tag team to slant the article in Thomas's favor unless you start an RfC or something of the like. RafaelRGarcia ( talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this material to balance out a rather laudatory opinion of Thomas in the Recent Years section of the article, and I hope you can weigh in on its clear validity in the talk page:
In contrast, law professor Donald Wilkes calls Thomas "the most reactionary Supreme Court Justice" in decades, and says Thomas has a "proclivity for demeaning human rights." He notes what he calls Thomas's tendency to vote "systematically in favor of assertions of government power and against claims of individual liberty."
[1]
RafaelRGarcia (
talk)
04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, we should probably endeavor to raise the bar. In any case, I was serious when I said I was unwatching the page. There are enough crappy articles on Wikipedia, and I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. I don't want to spend my time here fighting about Clarence Thomas with a bunch of people who are obviously more committed to the topic than I. MastCell Talk 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Justice Thomas is often described as an originalist, as well as a member of the "far right" of the Supreme Court. [2] [3] [4]
Thanks for dealing with the LuvGoldStar account. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As we both seem to have strong opinions about this, I've asked for a third opinion in Wikipedia:Third opinion. I have to admit that I have extremely strong concerns about this issue as my wife passed two ELISA tests and so it took nine months to diagnose her Lyme Disease, which is now chronic and nearing the point of crippling her. Simesa ( talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Please, please. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was the "problem" editor at Wikifan bogus sock report. The ANI has now spilled over into a dispute between User:SlimVirgin and I. She is accusing me of Fraud and threatening to file a topic ban against me. I find this turn of events very disturbing and would really appreciate at least some kind of intervention or "weigh in" that doesn't involve me getting permabanned. Also, Slim still believes I am a member of the CAMERA conspiracy. If you don't have the time, can you recommend someone? Please? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For your enlightenment:
-- Brangifer ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I really am very conceened about the accuracy of Lyme disease#Controversy and politics. I think more needs to be done, and the section expanded (especially based on comments from others in another forum reading this article), so I've opened an RfC (which I expect will find I'm somewhat biased myself). I do want to emphasize that the rest of the article does seem reflective of current mainstream beliefs. Simesa ( talk) 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andonee_reported_by_User:Stephan_Schulz_.28Result:_.29. Great minds and all that... ;-) -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell,
What's wrong with adding the adjective 'unidentified' (or 'unnamed') to describe the climate scientists quoted by ABC news? If their names are in the referenced article, I stand corrected. Andonee ( talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
Boris, the unintended humor in what you wrote is delicious. I'll give you some time to think about it.
Getting back to my main point, if the sources are 'unnamed', they should be referred to as such. If you interpret 'unnamed' as 'untrustworthy', that's up to you. The word 'unnamed' exactly describes the critics quoted in the article, because, well, their names weren't given. Andonee ( talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee
MastCell, I didn't want to just blow off your comment
here. I owe you a response but I prefer to take this off the talk page as the discussion is actually more about an editing philosophy at this point than the specifics of the Singer article.
I do understand the philosophical point you are arguing, and in isolation I can even agree with it. My somewhat inept attempt at expressing why I think it doesn't (or shouldn't?) apply in the case we were discussing comes down to this: while I can accept the philosophy you express as being a valid and appropriate goal I disagree that it can (or even should?) be applied universally and without exception. This case is a reasonable case in point. If trying to apply this principle leads us to exhibit behavior that allows me to accurately articulate the facts that I did here then I think we have crossed some sort of line because I believe that those specific facts point to something that will lead to an article that fails to achieve WP:NPOV. It is very easy for the majority (i.e. the dominant group of editors in any given article) to cherry pick sources that present things in a biased way (not that I am accusing you of that here) and a universal application of your principle will then necessarily lead to an article that nearly universally reflects that majority POV at the exclusion of a minority POV.
Can you not understand that as a skeptic when I read that very same ABC News article that I take note of a very different set of points than, say, you do? So the things that jump out at me may not be the same things that jump out at you. The unidentified nature of the scientists is, in fact, one such point. ABC was writing that article, not reporting on someone else's article. So they are the ones that chose to leave the sources unidentified. They must have had some reason for doing so, correct? I sincerely doubt that it was an oversight on their part. I don't know what the reasons are and I don't even want to speculate on what they may be, but the simple fact that they chose not to name names is significant for anyone reading that article with a critical eye.
Suppose, as a hypothetical example, the individuals in question asked not to be named because they feared being charged with defamation of character, or fraud, or something similar in response to their statement. Do you think that ABC would have printed this in the article? Not likely. They would have left it completely out and just left their sources anonymous. Alternatively, it is also possible that they selected individuals with a particular history with Singer and an axe to grind so that they could get a particularly sensational quote. Do you expect that they would have printed explicitly that they were not naming their sources because they were known enemies of Singer? Again, not likely. It is also possible that they simply told their sources that they were taking their statements off the record so that they could speak more freely. In doing so, of course, they opened the door to having them say things behind their anonymity that they would never had said publicly. This type of thing all factors into how much weight the reader should give a given statement.
Given these possibilities, in this case I think your requirement that ABC make a big deal about the anonymous nature of their sources in order to list them as unidentified is misplaced and for obvious reasons. They aren't going to rat themselves out for any questionable deeds that lie behind keeping the sources anonymous. In this case what ABC chose NOT to say is just as significant to the critical thinker as is what they DID say and I don't think that there is anything wrong with making such points explicit in our summaries. I guess YMMV on that.
A fundamental question here is whether WP:NPOV is intended to be applied at an individual source level (which is sort of your point as I understand it ... at least from the perspective of not changing the "bias" of the source) or whether it is a more over-arching concept for the article as a whole (which is more where I am coming from). I don't believe that strict adherence to the former necessarily leads to the latter. Do you?
Anyway I respect you and your point of view even if I disagree with it from time to time. So are we "good" here? I meant no offense in my commentary at Singer's talk page. -- GoRight ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The real question is, what do we do as Wikipedia editors when we think that something published in a reliable source is flawed, or out-and-out crap? Different people have different approaches. I tend to think that we need to grit our teeth and live with it, because if editors start interposing their personal evaluations of the journalistic quality of various reliable sources, then that's an extremely slippery slope.
Regarding the last part, I'll take this opportunity to apologize for being snippy. A few days ago, someone asked me on another talk page whether I'd gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. I have felt more short-tempered than usual recently; as you've probably experienced, sometimes the frustrations of Wikipedia can accumulate to the point where one is not at one's best. We're fine; I wasn't offended, and I apologize for being cranky. MastCell Talk 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, nothing.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikidashboard, also if you go to an article it shows contributors. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Better be careful in that new committee. [2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The sad thing about the resignations - aside from the fact that these are excellent people that we're losing - is that ArbCom has improved dramatically in the 3 years or so that I've been aware of it. The current ArbCom is the best so far, by a large margin, and the trend has been one of steady improvement. But simultaneously, the job has gotten to be literally unsustainable - look at the turnover in the past year, going back to the rash of resignations leading up to last year's election. We've created a job that is pretty much guaranteed to lead to burnout - in a best case scenario. It's basically a game of king of the mountain - someone ascends to the top, and then everyone focuses their energy on knocking them off the pedestal. Other successful enterprises have operated that way - the Roman Empire comes to mind - but it doesn't seem like a good model for a volunteer encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been advertising your page when I make the indicated linkrot updates. I am assuming that you do not mind, but it occurred to me this morning that it might be polite to ask. - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You may or may not recall User:Muntuwandi and the vast array of socks. The latest is User:Earl_J._Redneck_III and in this guise M appears willing to talk and to offer to behave. With your permission, I'd like to try a trial unblock to see if reason prevails William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm so used to reading poorly designed trials and shilly, manufacturer-sponsored Studies™ that I guess I got a little carried away. I was even briefly tempted to note conflicts of interest in each footnote, but that would have made the References section longer than the article (just kiding... or am I?) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, it's pretty trivial to describe the problem - one can cite everything from out-and-out promotional fraud and bias in sponsored review articles, to more subtle bias that falls under the questionable-but-not-fraudulent category. I don't think that any serious peruser of the medical literature can afford to be ignorant of authorial conflicts of interest.
On the other hand, how to handle them for Wikipedia's purposes? In a medical journal, the disclosures are given in small print at the end of the article - they're obvious for anyone who cares, but they don't drown out the text of the article. In contrast, most Wikipedia solutions would involve giving the disclosure statement far more weight than warranted by the original source - if we spend one sentence summarizing an article's content, and one summarizing conflicts of interest, we've seriously altered the weighting and (I would argue) misrepresented the original source.
Part of it may be the differing readerships. I think most journal editors assume a certain level of sophistication on the parts of their readers - they are presumed to be able to interpret the study and the conflicts for themselves. On the other hand, here on Wikipedia most of the people who focus on the issue seem driven by a need to hit people over the head with "zOMG EVIL DRUG INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA!!1!!", which speaks both to the sorts of people attracted by the issue and to the presumed lack of sophistication on the parts of our readers. Anyhow, no solutions handy, but since you brought it up, it's a question I've been pondering recently. MastCell Talk 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked, appalled and horrified that you are not on Abd's A-list or B-list. When we're all invited for cocktails and canapés in Springfield, I'll save you a vol-au-vent. Which kind do you prefer - mushroom, shrimp or asparagus? I generally avoid the petit-fours because they can contain nuts. Were you looking for a misplaced invitation on my talk page when you accidentally hit the wrong button? :-) Mathsci ( talk) 06:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I reported Muntuwandi @ socks copyright violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have taken flight from my hypotheticals:
Wikipedia_talk:SOCK#.22Escaping_bullies_or_pressure.22
MBisanz
talk
03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at ANI. I have refactored my FTN post as I agree with your criticism. All the best, Verbal chat 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over my comments at WP:BLPN and redacted some of them that I think were too harsh. [3] Let's keep discussing this in a way that might lead to a consensus. -- Noroton ( talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the laudatory Goldstein quote from the Thomas article per new comments on it, and would look for your comment on it also. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=303666698&oldid=303666241 RafaelRGarcia ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! YourHumanRights left a message on my talk page in relation to his reverted edits on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons page. I have no knowledge on the subject. The message left follows:
I have made a additions and a few edits to make the page for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons more accurate and less of a slander page against this community of medical professionals. Now I am receiving messages that my posts do not have a neutral point of view. I'd like an explanation as to what exactly it is about the Declaration of Geneva, Helsinki, and the UDHR that is somehow biased. Additionally, I'd like to know ion what grounds the proven fact that abortion causes preterm birth later in life - and thus a host of needless birth defects for future children - must be kept secret on behalf of the very partisan and biased preferences of the current author's hatred of this organization. Which of my sources are bad? The United Nations ? Wikipedia ? The Journal of Reproductive Medicine ? Or is it just sources like "Quackwatch" that deserve publication ?
— YourHumanRights ( talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain to the user why the edits were reverted, thanks, Cargoking talk 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked in an AfD, if I considered the Atlanta paper to be local media for Athens. In the strict sense of the word, no, because both have seperate markets. But I normally use a (totally arbitrary I admit) rule of thumb of a 50-75 mile radius to be "local". Atlanta is about 70 road miles from Athens, even less of an air mile radius. So they are very borderline to me. Local papers MUST cover local issues to sell papers. If there were no local news in them, people would just pick up USA Today. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Bigipedia from BBC Radio 4. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was a fairly straightforward suggestion that people could either agree with or not. Sigh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I contacted you about this last week - I realize you just may not care. But at this point there has been some lively (and startlingly unrancorous) discussion from a range of users. I am hoping I can pursuade you to check it out. You care about good content, and policies, so perhaps you can make a constructive contribution here? Slrubenstein | Talk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave_Szulborski. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrhia ( talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've shrunk/rewritten some of my text you objected to in the talk page. Which renders your response a little silly, but I didn't want to go editing your text without permission so I left it as is. For what it's worth, I am currently *using* EC. My earlier research convinced me the benefits for me outweighed the risk, so I've been taking either ECA or EC for the last three months and my results are consistent with all those studies I found - I lost over 5% of body weight, nearly effortlessly, almost all of it fat loss rather than muscle loss according to my resistance-sensor. With no noticeable side effects, which again is what one would expect from the journal articles.
I noticed in a few of the double-blind study full articles I read - especially the later ones where they were *looking* for specific bad-outcome issues - that people would drop out of the study because they experienced a scary side-effect symptom. Then at the end of the study it would turn out roughly half of those people were getting the placebo. If you see that in a study of 20 or 50 or 100 people, it seems certain that if 12 million people start taking the drug you are guaranteed to see a *lot* of negative symptoms. So the fact that the FDA *did* see a lot of negative symptoms is not really in conflict with the earlier studies., not surprising, and not (barring more careful analysis) a clear reason to avoid the drug.
Between my ability to see this particular glass half full and yours to see it half-empty, this article should be excellent once we reach a happy medium. Thanks for your help and patience! -- Blogjack ( talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Fluoride Deception is a Google Video that outlines that numerous studies involving negligible fluoride toxicity have been faked by corrupted scientists working for rich tycoons and government officials who did not want to be sued over wrongful death or injury claims.
When more recent (1990s) scientists uncover this corruption, they are fired immediately upon disclosing that fluoride is highly toxic, highly carcinogenic, acting to lower intelligence quotients of those infected, and does not reduce dental caries as claimed. Without knowing it, environmentalists fighting against industrial pollution as happened in the 1948 Halloween incident in Donora, Pennsylvania never realized that the primary fatal toxic ingredient was an industrial release of fluoride / fluorine gas—a fact that was covered up by PR releases by government officials at the time—overriding what other toxicologists had discovered and reported.
Description is as follows:
Could you please review and comment on this. Thanks in advance. Oldspammer ( talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a pro-fluoride advocate - I think you could argue that it's probably overkill to fluoridate the water - but I'm turned off by the ignorance, paranoia, and conspiracism which still dominate the anti-fluoridation rhetoric. I understand the temptation to demonize a specific chemical or biological entity, to point to it as the cause of the myriad ills of the modern age. It's a natural human instinct. If you don't believe that fluoride is the root of all evil, feel free to take your pick of Epstein-Barr virus, Lyme disease, thimerosal, the MMR vaccine, the underwire bra... The world isn't that simple, and human biology certainly isn't. That's my opinion. MastCell Talk 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)