Please explain removal of 'Views' section.-- Alroyfonseca ( talk) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The views section is sourced entirely from a non-reliable source, his blog. According to WP:OR, such a self-published source in not reliable, and thus should not be included in the article. If there is a proper source, then absolutely it should be included. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- If a blog is not a reliable source, then the whole section on climate change should probably be deleted, except perhaps to note that Rancourt took a position on it, and how that position relates to climate scientists' perspectives. Indeed, much of Rancourt's work is in the blogosphere, which does not meet Wikipedia's standards. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are completely correct. The only reliable sources, secondary sources in this case, are the ones that mention his work (found in the reaction section) such as 'The Nation' or 'Seven Oaks'. While those sources are better than original research, I still doubt how good these sources are, since none of them are academic - the only sources that could truly provide context and information on his views. (For example, a review in Science or Nature.) So far, I don't think this kind of source exists for his work.
- The other problem are the very suspicious edits by IPs... Perhaps we should call an admin to intervene. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to wait to see what the response to our efforts is. Not favourable, perhaps, in which case no other option may remain than to contact an Admin. On the climate change front: the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is no International Panel on Climate Change, so perhaps that reference is not strong. I think their URL is: http://www.ipcc.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't think The Dominion was a good source, and this confirmed my suspicion. I took another look into Seven Oaks, and it appears to be just as poor a source. It looks like the climate change essay section may need to be removed entirely, pendng a reliable source, but I agree that we should wait for feedback. I reverted my edit to your edit regarding the IPCC's correct name. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The more I learn about Rancourt, the creepier it gets. Now this SmashTheState guy is issuing threats. Rancourt is on the record with crazy anti-semitic throwaway statements, but he's got this little but vocal cult following. It's like entering a parallel universe where you can say anything and claim it's true because of an undetectable conspiracy of "financiers" (which I believe is racist doublespeak for jews) that secretly working against this guy. Frankly, it's getting close to me "excessively creepy" threshold. I think this entry should be brought to admin attention, as should the repeated threats from SmashTheState. The irony of these guys is one of the creepiest bits: they argue that they represent some kind of group of the unwittingly suppressed while working as hard as they can to suppress free expression in others. In the case of this wiki, it's simple NPOV work on a truly low quality entry that seems to be unacceptable. I guess if it achieved a proper wiki standard, it would no longer be an effective propaganda tool. God, it's just really out there. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. Rancourt doesn't even always hide behind politically correct language; he has blamed "the Jews" outright on a few occasions. Ironically, most groups that promote free speech do so under the guise of suppressing speech. Or course, now that you said it and I've agreed with you, I'm sure we'll be criticized somehow. On a side note, have you read about his student Marc Kelly? I've search the two student newspapers listed as references in the article, and have found his shenanigans both hilarious and sadly ineffective. I'm sure his goals were once noble, but now he just wants attention.
- I believe the most sensible course of action is to make a request for comments on this bibliography. This will attract some editors and potentially an admin. If additional attacks from other editors are forthcoming, or suspicious mass reverts from IPs continue, we should immediately call an admin. Sound like a plan? Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds entirely reasonable. Let's try. Do you have printed sources where Rancourt has blamed "the Jews" for anything? I started feeling a little sick about this topic when I got into the links between David Noble and Rancourt. They are both quite popular on anti-semitic web sites. Anyway, it's foul and I just didn't want to pursue it anymore, but if you have an easy-to-find source for this, I can maybe skip the trudge through the nasty swamp water to can better informed about the issue. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hope this article helps: http://www.thefulcrum.ca/?q=news/u-o-suspends-rancourt Cheers. -- Bismark41 ( talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article sums up several of Rancourt's recent controversial statements regarding the Israeli and Jewish lobby, and the reaction they're receiving. La Rotonde has recently published several articles on Rancourt's views, which are all available if you search for Rancourt at La Rotonde website.
- I have made a major edit to Rancourt's entry today, removing very extensive and intensely uninformative material that rakes over minutiae. I expect to get severely flamed for this, but what the hell. It needed to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the email. I read the article. I have deleted temperal lobe epilepsy from the symptoms list.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that 16 out of 31 references are of the guy simeon. I noticed you have raised the issue of relying too much on one source. I really wonder if we should start applying the same standards that you suggest to the depersonalisation disorder article. We could do a good job of gutting that article according to your standards. What do you think of this idea? Essentially the article is largely the view point of one expert.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- You just don't get it, do you? I've raised concerns about relying too much on a single source, that is, a paper or study, and not a researcher. You are either deliberately distorting the concerns I've raised, which is malicious, or you simply don't understand, in which case I pity you.
- If you have concerns about an article, raise them on the corresponding talk page. You would do well to remember that editors don't own articles. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to provide justification as to why DepersonalizationDisorder.org should not be removed as an external link from the Depersonalization Disorder page. As per Wikipedia guidelines the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link and to prove why the link should not be removed. I have therefore carefully reviewed each of the suggested points from the Wikipedia guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link) and respond to each of the relevant points listed below.
In regards to the section edtitled “What should be linked” the website is: 1) the official non-profit site for information and support on Depersonalization Disorder and is professionally reviewed, and 2) the site contains accurate material that is relevant to an understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail (such as statistics, support information, relevant resources, or online reading suggestions).
In regards to the section entitled “Links normally to be avoided” I have responded to the following points of possible concern:
Point #1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. [The site provides a number of unique resources beyond the article entry including treatment and support information, treatment reviews, book reviews, and online questionnaires.]
Point #4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. [The site intends to promote the public interest and is non-profit.]
Point #5: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services. [The site does not in any way sell any products or services.]
Point #6: Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. [The site is free and accessible to all.]
Point #10: Links to social networking sites. [While the site does have an online community that members can join free of charge, as a resource center the site exists mainly to provide information and support.]
For these above reasons I have re-added the link to the Depersonalization Disorder Wikipedia article page and ask that it not be removed for the benefit of all concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindinflow ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
These have been inserted to finally remove uncited and unreferenced and phantasized material and proven misrepresentation of sources inserted by a vandal and previously removed from Temazepam article due to lack of factual basis. We cannot allow bulk insertions of phantasized materials and will remove swiftly everything which does not check against reference or is unreferenced. Feel free to reinsert if you have references point by point. 70.137.130.4 ( talk) 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to bother explaining fact tags to you, or get in an edit war over this. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. TastyCakes ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Regretfully I failed Depersonalization disorder for lack of reviewer follow through. I apologize to you that the article was left hanging so long. You are free to seek Good article reassessment or to nominate the article again at Good article nominations. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been guilty of much of the first-line mess myself, but would support changing the MOS along the lines you suggest. Your example is a good one, and much nicer the way you suggest. However, what would be the cutoff? There are lots of cases where we have:
A (US) or B (UK) is a ...
or
The A (Genus sp.) is a ...
or
A (pronounced /a/) is a ...
where having the info immediately is useful. (In some cases the pronunciation is obscure and counterintuitive, and not including the IPA makes the article difficult to read for those of us who hear words as we read them.) In some cases I've moved the whole pronunciation/transcription section to a footnote, and in others I've moved most to a footnote but left a minimal amount that is not disruptive.
You're not the only one to complain about this, and cleaning it up is often part of FA review, but I'm not sure how to craft an MOS guideline. Perhaps we can take it up there? kwami ( talk) 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please explain removal of 'Views' section.-- Alroyfonseca ( talk) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The views section is sourced entirely from a non-reliable source, his blog. According to WP:OR, such a self-published source in not reliable, and thus should not be included in the article. If there is a proper source, then absolutely it should be included. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- If a blog is not a reliable source, then the whole section on climate change should probably be deleted, except perhaps to note that Rancourt took a position on it, and how that position relates to climate scientists' perspectives. Indeed, much of Rancourt's work is in the blogosphere, which does not meet Wikipedia's standards. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are completely correct. The only reliable sources, secondary sources in this case, are the ones that mention his work (found in the reaction section) such as 'The Nation' or 'Seven Oaks'. While those sources are better than original research, I still doubt how good these sources are, since none of them are academic - the only sources that could truly provide context and information on his views. (For example, a review in Science or Nature.) So far, I don't think this kind of source exists for his work.
- The other problem are the very suspicious edits by IPs... Perhaps we should call an admin to intervene. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to wait to see what the response to our efforts is. Not favourable, perhaps, in which case no other option may remain than to contact an Admin. On the climate change front: the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is no International Panel on Climate Change, so perhaps that reference is not strong. I think their URL is: http://www.ipcc.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't think The Dominion was a good source, and this confirmed my suspicion. I took another look into Seven Oaks, and it appears to be just as poor a source. It looks like the climate change essay section may need to be removed entirely, pendng a reliable source, but I agree that we should wait for feedback. I reverted my edit to your edit regarding the IPCC's correct name. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The more I learn about Rancourt, the creepier it gets. Now this SmashTheState guy is issuing threats. Rancourt is on the record with crazy anti-semitic throwaway statements, but he's got this little but vocal cult following. It's like entering a parallel universe where you can say anything and claim it's true because of an undetectable conspiracy of "financiers" (which I believe is racist doublespeak for jews) that secretly working against this guy. Frankly, it's getting close to me "excessively creepy" threshold. I think this entry should be brought to admin attention, as should the repeated threats from SmashTheState. The irony of these guys is one of the creepiest bits: they argue that they represent some kind of group of the unwittingly suppressed while working as hard as they can to suppress free expression in others. In the case of this wiki, it's simple NPOV work on a truly low quality entry that seems to be unacceptable. I guess if it achieved a proper wiki standard, it would no longer be an effective propaganda tool. God, it's just really out there. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. Rancourt doesn't even always hide behind politically correct language; he has blamed "the Jews" outright on a few occasions. Ironically, most groups that promote free speech do so under the guise of suppressing speech. Or course, now that you said it and I've agreed with you, I'm sure we'll be criticized somehow. On a side note, have you read about his student Marc Kelly? I've search the two student newspapers listed as references in the article, and have found his shenanigans both hilarious and sadly ineffective. I'm sure his goals were once noble, but now he just wants attention.
- I believe the most sensible course of action is to make a request for comments on this bibliography. This will attract some editors and potentially an admin. If additional attacks from other editors are forthcoming, or suspicious mass reverts from IPs continue, we should immediately call an admin. Sound like a plan? Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds entirely reasonable. Let's try. Do you have printed sources where Rancourt has blamed "the Jews" for anything? I started feeling a little sick about this topic when I got into the links between David Noble and Rancourt. They are both quite popular on anti-semitic web sites. Anyway, it's foul and I just didn't want to pursue it anymore, but if you have an easy-to-find source for this, I can maybe skip the trudge through the nasty swamp water to can better informed about the issue. FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hope this article helps: http://www.thefulcrum.ca/?q=news/u-o-suspends-rancourt Cheers. -- Bismark41 ( talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article sums up several of Rancourt's recent controversial statements regarding the Israeli and Jewish lobby, and the reaction they're receiving. La Rotonde has recently published several articles on Rancourt's views, which are all available if you search for Rancourt at La Rotonde website.
- I have made a major edit to Rancourt's entry today, removing very extensive and intensely uninformative material that rakes over minutiae. I expect to get severely flamed for this, but what the hell. It needed to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the email. I read the article. I have deleted temperal lobe epilepsy from the symptoms list.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that 16 out of 31 references are of the guy simeon. I noticed you have raised the issue of relying too much on one source. I really wonder if we should start applying the same standards that you suggest to the depersonalisation disorder article. We could do a good job of gutting that article according to your standards. What do you think of this idea? Essentially the article is largely the view point of one expert.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- You just don't get it, do you? I've raised concerns about relying too much on a single source, that is, a paper or study, and not a researcher. You are either deliberately distorting the concerns I've raised, which is malicious, or you simply don't understand, in which case I pity you.
- If you have concerns about an article, raise them on the corresponding talk page. You would do well to remember that editors don't own articles. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to provide justification as to why DepersonalizationDisorder.org should not be removed as an external link from the Depersonalization Disorder page. As per Wikipedia guidelines the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link and to prove why the link should not be removed. I have therefore carefully reviewed each of the suggested points from the Wikipedia guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link) and respond to each of the relevant points listed below.
In regards to the section edtitled “What should be linked” the website is: 1) the official non-profit site for information and support on Depersonalization Disorder and is professionally reviewed, and 2) the site contains accurate material that is relevant to an understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail (such as statistics, support information, relevant resources, or online reading suggestions).
In regards to the section entitled “Links normally to be avoided” I have responded to the following points of possible concern:
Point #1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. [The site provides a number of unique resources beyond the article entry including treatment and support information, treatment reviews, book reviews, and online questionnaires.]
Point #4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. [The site intends to promote the public interest and is non-profit.]
Point #5: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services. [The site does not in any way sell any products or services.]
Point #6: Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. [The site is free and accessible to all.]
Point #10: Links to social networking sites. [While the site does have an online community that members can join free of charge, as a resource center the site exists mainly to provide information and support.]
For these above reasons I have re-added the link to the Depersonalization Disorder Wikipedia article page and ask that it not be removed for the benefit of all concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindinflow ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
These have been inserted to finally remove uncited and unreferenced and phantasized material and proven misrepresentation of sources inserted by a vandal and previously removed from Temazepam article due to lack of factual basis. We cannot allow bulk insertions of phantasized materials and will remove swiftly everything which does not check against reference or is unreferenced. Feel free to reinsert if you have references point by point. 70.137.130.4 ( talk) 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to bother explaining fact tags to you, or get in an edit war over this. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. TastyCakes ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Regretfully I failed Depersonalization disorder for lack of reviewer follow through. I apologize to you that the article was left hanging so long. You are free to seek Good article reassessment or to nominate the article again at Good article nominations. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been guilty of much of the first-line mess myself, but would support changing the MOS along the lines you suggest. Your example is a good one, and much nicer the way you suggest. However, what would be the cutoff? There are lots of cases where we have:
A (US) or B (UK) is a ...
or
The A (Genus sp.) is a ...
or
A (pronounced /a/) is a ...
where having the info immediately is useful. (In some cases the pronunciation is obscure and counterintuitive, and not including the IPA makes the article difficult to read for those of us who hear words as we read them.) In some cases I've moved the whole pronunciation/transcription section to a footnote, and in others I've moved most to a footnote but left a minimal amount that is not disruptive.
You're not the only one to complain about this, and cleaning it up is often part of FA review, but I'm not sure how to craft an MOS guideline. Perhaps we can take it up there? kwami ( talk) 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)