User talk:Phyesalis/Archive 2

History of abortion

No, believe me, I'm very glad that someone is deciding to give History of abortion the attention it deserves. :-) I did reply to you on why I think that the 19th century advertising information is a better fit under "Medical" than "Social" in the "In use" thread on Talk:History of abortion, but you might have missed it, probably because I refered to only one "comment" in my edit summary.[1] I'm sorry if I was a little quick to revert, and I'm certainly open to rearranging the article in such a fashion as you've suggested, as it doesn't really present a major change in terms of content. I just tend to favour sections which have a very rigidly-defined scope. I'm sure that we can define the most appropriate scope for each section and determine the ideal ordering of sections from there. -Severa (!!!) 06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Just a quick note to let you know that I've replied at User talk:Jakew. Jakew (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on Your Exceptional Edits to the Article on Female Genital Cutting

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to personally recognize your efforts to improve the article on female genital cutting and to thank you for your recent exceptional editing of the History of Terminology section by bestowing onto you this Barnstar. Your work is very appreciated! ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Hey Physesalis, just to be clear-- you do think that the new version of Purgatory is the better one??

I just ask because I've had more trouble getting it to stay up than I'd expected. When I wrote it, I sort of naively expected it would immediately be hailed as an improvement by all sides of the pre-existing POV dispute I was trying to mediate. Turns out, I was a little over-optimistic, and the two editors on one side of the dispute strongly oppose the change. So, I just wanted to check in with oyu and be extra double clear you think the new version should come it, rather than just infer it from your statment. :)

Thanks again for helping out! --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been thinking about this. Your edits, while they address the POV issue, lack in citation. I would suggest that you find some sources on purgatory and the arts, which is where you might find support for the (correct) assertions about the laity's perspective on purgatory. Check it in association with Milton, Dante and Dore. Also, maybe a peer-review article on the subject would help. If you can work some better citations in, I won't have a problem building on my previous opinion. You did some good work, just keep at it. Phyesalis (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on Female Genital Cutting. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to lend a hand, but I'm a little confused about what the central dispute is. What exactly is this guy objecting to?QuizzicalBee 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The editor in question keeps reverting my contributions and challenging them with WP policy. When I respond in great detail (with citation sources), he refuses to respond in kind and continues to repeat the same thing over and over ("It's a violation!" without specifying why my and other pre-existing citations are no good. He has twice accused me of things a simple diff check shows I didn't do. He seems to want to make every tiny problem with the article my fault (I only recently started editing it) Right now, the issues are whether or not my last edits to the Female Genital Cutting#Cultural and religious aspects are NOR, NPOV, SYN and R. He reverted them twice without substantive discussion, and to avoid an edit war I have stepped back and asked for input. I have provided an overview under Talk:Female genital cutting#Blackworm's objections. He's failed to assume good faith from our first interaction. I didn't help things much by eventually responding to his tone in kind, but since then, I have tried to discuss this with him on his talk page. He's basically told me that it's my responsiblity how to figure out why my contributions are a violation. The problem is that he has never once provided sources to show that my edits are. Now, I'm no expert, but I actually did study this issue in college. He doesn't really understand the subject. He doesn't get the medicalization aspects (nor issues of cultural relativism), keeps asserting that it is a religious practice (there are multiple sources in the section saying it's not and none to the contrary) and is in general being disruptive. Any suggestions? Phyesalis 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at the dispute and found it rather confusing. Here are a few observations that may help:

• A series of small changes are usually more acceptable to other editors. If you make a big change and someone makes a wholesale revert, a whole lot of your work goes down the drain at once, and that's not pleasant.
• The policies of Wikipedia are both a safeguard for the quality of articles and a weapon that can be used ruthlessly by cultural warriors. If a charge of original research is made, it could be right. I think your problem with saying that female genital cutting is a religious practice has to do with the culture wars that surround the subject. Reformers want to distance it from Islam so that it can be eradicated without challenging religious orthodoxies. Meanwhile, some Islamic scholars do support the practice on the grounds of religious tradition [2] and others are using the same religious traditions to argue against the practice [3]. I don't know if these references would pass muster but they may help.
• Watch out for undue weight. This happens when an article or a part of an article has a disproportionate emphasis on what is a small point. The use of more extensive quotes in footnotes may help to alleviate this problem.

Hope that this helps. Michael Glass 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm saying (in line with all the sources) that it is not a religious practice. There are some specific religious sub-cultures that do practice it but this can not be used to support the assertion that it is a "religious practice", particularly in the face of all the citations (including a tertiary source - the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). Are you looking at my edit or BW's current edit? Most arguments are about a mix between religious justification for a pre-existing cultural practice. It is not OR and is supported by the citations in the section. How is it that I provide citations and he doesn't, yet his argument of OR is legit? I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how the burden of proof doesn't apply to us equally. It would be extremely helpful if you could explain this to me. I appreciate the response. Phyesalis 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion/request. It would be helpful to me, and I think to others and even to you and Blackworm if you would describe clearly on the talk page each of the various edits under contention, and provide a place for discussion of each edit, refraining from taking up any space there with comments about user behaviour or other extraneous stuff. (If it's really necessary to say anything about user behaviour, user talk pages are a more appropriate place.) May I suggest that you create a subsection (header with 3 equals signs) about each particular edit (e.g. each sentence being edited, or other logical subdivision into small edits), quoting what it said originally as well as what you want to change it to, and your reasons for wanting to change it, and invite others to discuss each edit within each subsection. At the moment the discussion is rather opaque to outsiders -- pretty much all one sees is comments about who reverted what when, not much about what the article really ought to say or why -- e.g. you say "sources" but don't name what specific sources you mean. If you lay it out as I suggest, it would be easier for me to get involved in the discussion. By the way, 3R is not an entitlement. --Coppertwig 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied again at my talk page. By the way, I'm not sure if I mentioned it already but I redirected Talk:FGC to Female genital cutting a day or so ago so that your messages would make more sense. [[FGC]] still goes to a disambiguation page, though. --Coppertwig 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ABC

Thanks for asking m for help re: Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. I corrected an obvious error in the statistical discussion of the article. It appears to me , however, that a more in-depth help would require significant time; I doubt that I have that available but see what I can do. Ekem 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Post-abortion syndrome

Hi, I'm sure we can find a compromise. I realize that PAS is not medically recognized and that it is more politically controversial than it is medically. I agree with your view. However, when you described PAS as a term "used by pro-lifers" and a "rejected theory," all in about one or two sentences, I just thought the wording was a bit too "in your face." Perhaps we can find another word to replace "diagnosis" and take out "rejected theory." And perhaps the sentence about the fact that it is mostly used by pro-lifers can be moved to another part of the lead paragraph. mirageinred (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. There has to be a better word for "diagnosis," but I can't really think of one. What about "a set of symptoms that are proposed to occur in women" or something like that? mirageinred (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To Phyesalis and Blackworm

Re comments such as "It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith." and "From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, ": If you must discuss such things, would you please move it to user talk pages or someplace so the article talk page can be kept focussed on article content discussion? It would really help. Thanks. I'm posting a similar message at User talk:Blackworm. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

This is just a thank you for putting your two cents in on the "see Sharp Press" contriversy. too often people shy away from the RfC because the debate has hit the "uncontrolably hostile" catagory (I will admit to loging on to wikipedia about every hr. during that one just to see who had screamed next...poor behavior, but I am human)

Your comment actually cooled things down a bit, it was pointed out by one of the members and we where able to simmer down and get on with it. so Thank You for your contribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am not shure how familiar you are with bell hooks, usualy she does race, but recently she has focused her attention to feminism and relationships. her talk at USC (i believe that was the school) last month focused on relationships, and how to form a partnership today. anyway, feminism is one of my interests, so I just wanted to pass that one along.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Smith's Friends

Hi Phyesalis. Yes, I have some questions:

Did you respond the same way to the people who remove the link to the discussion group constantly?

Do you think you are neutral in this case? To me it seems you're not unfortunately.

What's your comment about the fact that WP has the exception I was talking about?

Why did you quote a big episode of how to revert on my talk page? I think that is not very useful and a little schoolmarmish.

Last but not least I think it's not very relevant to be a relatively new user or not. Apart from that I'm active at Wikipedia for some years, but unfortunately my old (Dutch) sign in didn't work in the English version.
Lampje (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lampje. First of all, terribly sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending, I really thought you were a new user (that's generally what a blank user talk page means, right?). Polite discussion of edit warring and 3RR violations is always relevant to a new user who might not be aware of WP policy. What if you had been a new, enthusiastic editor making changes in good faith but didn't know about the 3RR violation or the implications of edit warring? If you read at the top of my talk page, I was once that editor. Someone tagged me with a 3RR violation when not only didn't I know about it - I hadn't even committed the violation! Nonetheless, the editor's note eventually lead to me having a much better understanding of the rules. I was merely trying to give a presumably new editor a heads up so that they didn't make unintentional mistakes. I swear. I had no way of knowing you had been an editor for a long time under a different signature. My comment was that WP policy clearly frowns on discussion groups as external links. I only made the comment about edit warring to you on your talk page because in the time since I made the RfC comment, you were the only person I noticed who had reverted it more than once. Leaving WP policy on new users' talk pages is pretty standard fare, I'm not sure how that makes me schoolmarmish.Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I suppose schoolmarmish is not the right word, sorry about that. English is not my motherlanguage, so it's sometimes difficult for me to find the right words. May be next time it 's better to post a link to 'how to revert' instead of paste and copy such an amount of text. I'm convinced about your good intentions. Lampje (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith. No offense taken. Phyesalis (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FGC article

Hi Phyesalis

Sorry, I don't even remember editing that article, it must be at least two years since I last did. Were you able to work it out? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Close

Can you close the RFA for History of sex slavery. I just redirected it, but I can't find the proper tag to close an RFA AFD. --Sharkface217 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, whoops. Sorry about that tiny mistake (I get so confused between the millions of Wiki-acronyms). I posted a note that I redirected. --Sharkface217 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Diff links

You may already know this so I hope you don't mind if I try to be helpful here, but if you ever need to refer back to a record of who said what when, the only really good evidence is diff links, like this, as asked for in the instructions at the top of WP:AN/I, for example. Linking to a talk page or a section of a talk page doesn't prove anything, because it could get archived or deleted after you link to it, or anybody could have edited the words above someone's signature, for good or bad reasons (oops, no, couldn't have been for bad reasons :-). A diff link shows with certainty who the author of a comment was. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Saying "feel free to revert" wasn't as polite as I thought it was when I said it, because it uses up one of your reverts if you're counting for 3RR. I should have thought of that, especially since I think I've been in this same situation before, and should have written "feel free to revert or ask me to self-revert pending discussion". I've just put up a self-revert userbox. Unfortunately I don't always follow my own advice :-\ I've criticized people in the past for going ahead and editing a section that was already under discussion. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I edited your comment to fix the link to WP:BRD which is what I think you meant; you had BDR which was a redlink. By the way, diff links and external links only need single square brackets. (Maybe you put the extra square brackets as punctuation.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology again. Some of my behaviour more recently has been more selfishly motivated than I admitted to myself, and I didn't afford you the level of consideration and sensitivity that I intended to and that I thought you deserved. I also failed to take my own advice about waiting 24 hours before responding in certain situations. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate how you've been keeping the discussion at Talk:Reproductive rights largely focussed on article content rather than editor behaviour recently. It makes things easier. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of ABC article

Is the article still totally disputed? I also took after IronAngelAlice's lead and made some edits I felt were needed. Your feedback is needed, thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, no worries; Holidays were good the DUI hitting me from behind wasn't. I still have go through your old list and see what I've missed, and need to review Russo studies to see if "reinterpreted" is accurate in the lead. I came across this conservative source, which may leads me to believe it isn't a reinterpretation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well yes there is something wrong, I've allowed you to make poor additions to the article; I'm not being unreasonable, and don't mistake trying to improve the article with WP:OWN. I find some of your positions unverifiable or based on tangential interpretation of good (Jasen) and not so good (NCI) sources.

The reason this has occurred is because you found a misquote I made for Russo on carcinogens. Though as it turns out it actually was a small mistake as they mention higher carcinogen results for abortion from other studies in the first part of the paragraph on the previous page (something I obviously inferred into the quote). Initially this put me in a defensive position and less apt to challenge your edits; also I was busy and had less time and inclination to scrutinize your edits. I've unburdened myself of that and require you meet the same standards you justly prevail upon me.

While I'm certainly capable of being unreasonable, you'll have to be more specific if I am to address any valid concerns you have. Of recent decisions and edits, I truly fail to see anything amiss apart from verified edits you (and others) disagree with (such as Daling), which is good in my books because it may force y'all to reevaluate your perception of some aspects of the ABC evidence. Presenting Brind in such an unflattering conspiratorial way, and not bothering to present his POV does go against the policy I referred you to.

It worries me, that instead of directly addressing my points; such as Daling's significant results, you side step the hard issues and questions and ask me to form a "consensus" for possible point of contention. There is no need to run the ABC article as if it were a democracy, if that happened you guys would continue to maintain ABC was/is "rejected" and akin to pseudoscience. Which it verifiably isn't.

Who died and made you or anyone else here more knowledgeable than me on the ABC issue? Why did you not notice and include Daling's statistically significant findings on nulliparous women? After all it was in the freely available abstract; and you've asserted yourself as well read on Daling and her work. Why did it take an accidental addition by a partisan pro-choice blogger to add WHO's notable interpretation of the ABC evidence to the lead? I'm digging in because you are being difficult. Yes, you are part of the problem Phyesalis... heh, and my long-windedness is too. You're convictions on ABC, Daling and other matters simply do not coincide precisely with the evidence; and when it does you are highly selective on the evidence you choose to consider. Mend your ways, or not, your prerogative... please just don't leave a disjointed mess on the ABC article and think I'll just leave it be based on your, at times, curiously sloppy interpretation of WikiPolicy.

Truth be told, I've been aggrieved with the recent lack luster rationales recently put forward by those I've come to trust. But it seems when things become ambiguous and contentious, they also will opt for the direction they are most comfortable with. Ultimately, that good faith fallacy is what all of this is about; and seems to be the true extent of the "conspiracy" against the ABC hypothesis. No malevolence nor deceit, just poor weighing of evidence and arguments to suit a narrowly defined and frustratingly unimaginative "war". I appreciate and share your concern, for it is well justified; but directed at the wrong subject... me.

As to the GA, yes I agree... the article will continue to be unverified (rejected) and contested (editorial of Brind) if the changes I've outlined and supported with straightforward policy and reliable sources are not addressed. The weirdest part is, as I've said in the past, the ABC issue can actually be leveraged and utilized by the pro-choice movement against pro-life legislation. It's not my fault they've allowed themselves to be cornered into a defensive "deny all" mentality. Which has seen them lose ground over the years. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will copy and paste this to the ABC article talk, after you've had a chance to review it. As it has several ideas I'd like to reiterate there. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RoyBoy, I've come to value our civil and mostly good-natured exchanges. I'd like to get back to that point. How might we do this in a way that will showcase your hard work and get this article back to GA, if not on to FA? Because that's what we both want, right? Phyesalis (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While I've learned from experience nothing is impossible with time, empathy and good faith collaborators; sometimes you just don't have those elements. When this occurs POV pushers rule the roost, careful contributors leave out of frustration, and critics of Wikipedia chuckle.

I just spent half my evening on this, and no article content has been improved or generated. This is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, consensus is key... but without one, you get mixed results. I'm so out of it, I want to ask you an off-topic question. Do you understand the significance of "death" being in the Abortion lead? Or do you just see POV pro-life language? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I think - I think you need some chocolate covered almonds! Seriously, why don't we both agree to step back from ABC, and its talk page, for 24 hours, maybe even 48 (and give poor MastCell a break :)? Many of the changes you want are in the article as it stands. It's not going anywhere. Let's just step away for 48 hrs and then regroup. We can generate a list of debated inclusions/exclusions and work on them one by one, come to an agreement, and get the article relisted. I'll spend the time not working on the article thinking of ways to improve on our process. Phyesalis (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolaty almonds are certainly tasty. Life is busy currently, so stepping back hasn't been a problem. However, my perspective will not shift as outlined here. WHO stipulates "first trimester" based on the best current evidence; leaving the hypothesis open for further scientific inquiry. Hardly affirmative evidence of a flawed rejected hypothesis. If you find this incongruous with your ABC perspective, then I'm unsure what can be done to improve things apart from dispute resolution. There isn't a need to compromise, or even ask permission, if something is wrong in the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To your question

As for your question, let me mirror what I think you are asking me. When you write "Do you understand the significance of "death" being in the abortion lead? Or do you just see POV pro-life language?" I see a loaded question, the bullet being the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. When you phrase the question as such, I kind of feel like I'm being set up.

But you have asked the question, and I will do my best to answer. I do see a significance, that some people think it is important to stress the death of the embryo or fetus. Do I see this as a form of POV pushing? Well, yes, in a way. But frankly I don't care. Abortion is a procedure that terminates pregnancy - another way to look at it is that abortion kills an embryo/fetus. Both have their advantages. On the one hand, the former has less emotional rhetoric. On the other had, the latter does get to the heart of the matter. Abortion is a form of death/killing. I'm ok with that. I think it's a matter of intellectual dishonesty to avoid that basic truth. Do I think that it needs to be stated as it is in the first sentence of the lead? No. It could be dealt with in a section dealing with Pro-life perspectives. But whatever, that's not a battle I choose to fight at the moment (if ever). Why do you ask? Phyesalis (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, to see if you can get past the "rhetoric" to the "heart of the matter". It was important for me to know, indeed it was a loaded question... and poorly put as I should have just asked you what you thought of it. But I am very satisfied with your answer, especially given my blunt question. And I'm glad you disagree, as its consistent with what little I know of you.

I ultimately supported death in the very first sentence because I was forced to recognize "termination" and other pro-choice terms are also rhetoric, as they are clinical terms. Death strikes what I continue to believe is a necessary balance on an emotional topic. Sure an alternative is to put it in a sub-section on pro-life perspectives, but removing death is suitable for an article on the abortion Procedure; but doesn't seem appropriate for the parent article on the Subject as a whole.

Secondly, to show that a broad perspective is preferable in leads – and that not strictly following the pro-choice perspective doesn't make it incorrect. It's a case study given the ABC first sentence dispute. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish

Honestly, I don't agree with adding the fact that she was a former sex worker in first place, but it's really trivial to argue over small things in first place. Quite frankly, his edit summaries and his conduct doesn't really give me the desire to work with him constructively. I just don't think that her description needs to be that specific and I find it almost excessive. I feel like saying that she is "a former worker and an advocate for sex workers' rights" gets to the point with brevity without saying "she is a spokesperson for so and so." By the way, feel free to provide your input at RfC. Thanks. миражinred 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that adding the "work history" datum is a bit unnecessary. Personally, I seem to remember her making an argument on the subject as it was tied to prostitution. If we use a quote to that effect, the datum might be relevant. If not, I think maybe just limiting her context to the singular but specific mention of PONY advocacy would be more than enough. Phyesalis (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)