User talk:MastCell

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Can't say I disagree with you at all; it only gets worse and worse. You go have a happy holiday, and a great 2011! Stay in touch, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. I'm sorry that it's come to this, and that I'm a part of the problem. If you think I can help fix things, drop me an email, I'd appreciate your advice and thoughts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think you're part of the problem. I would have handled things differently, but that doesn't mean I think you're a bad editor or admin. You're fine. It's not really about your actions, or those of any one person. It's more a general, growing sense about how things are going here. I have some ideas about what I think has gone wrong and what might help, and I may post them here at some point, but for now I'm just going to step back for awhile. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. When you're ready to come back, I'm ready to listen. In the meantime, hope you have a great new year. Best wishes, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being part of the problem. After the Climate Change arbcom decision was announced I realized that there's basically no place for me here and haven't made a mainspace edit in months. And after almost five years of playing the Wikipedia Politics Game I've given it up and have been speaking my mind. Sorry to have made things unpleasant for you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I also should apologize for my part in the shenanigans, but I've recently got such a bad taste in my mouth that when I see stuff that's unpalatable I tend to vomit in public rather than in private where I should. I'm pretty fed-up with the way these scenarios have tended to play themselves out on Wikipedia (remember when we could appeal to WP:CLUE? Not so much anymore, I fear) I admit to falling far from perfection, but I'm really tired of the way governance is more-or-less a Lord of the Flies type of proposition here. There have been some improvements over the last two years in editing environments (noticeboards have helped a lot), but the palpable social discord tends to inspire too much sardonicism from me. For that, I apologize. Let me know if there is anything I can do. (For example, mark AN/I as historical). Happy Holidays. jps (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, I didn't have anything you guys did in mind. Boris, the way you've been treated is actually the archetypal example of why I think this place is doomed. If we're lucky enough get an editor with demonstrated and recognized real-life expertise who's willing to volunteer here and play by the rules (to the extent that no one could even find a reason to oppose your RfA), then we need to recognize that person as a valuable resource and make an effort to retain them, or at least not actively antagonize them. I mean, Britannica would be falling all over itself to pay someone like Boris to edit their articles on climatology. Here, he works for free and we treat editors like him as an infinitely renewable resource. In a sane project - one that took seriously its stated goal to produce a serious, respectable reference work - someone like Boris would be in charge of coordinating our articles on climate change. I'm as frustrated as you two are at the gulf between this site's stated goals and its actuality; I've chosen to express my frustration by withdrawing (at present) instead of speaking out, but that's just a matter of personal style. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely -- wish I knew a way to fix it. Gotta fit in that sword-skeleton theory though without offending anybody. Is there a way to give that pile of old bones a good kick that will scatter them for good? Antandrus (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Hi MC, would you mind removing pending changes from Bradley Manning? You added it back in July during the trial. I'm having real difficulty using it. When I revert an IP change, I end up reverting some of my own edits too (or my own reversions). I can't even explain it properly. Here, for example, I reverted an IP adding OR. But in the same revert, I ended up reverting my own previous revert (or my rejection of the pending change) of another IP who added an inappropriate reference (the Stop the War link).

Would you mind taking a look and either adding semi-protection, if you think it needs it, or none? Cheers (and happy holidays!). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've been limiting my time here and had missed this request. I removed pending changes; if vandalism or BLP issues become a problem, then let me know and I'll happily semi-protect it. Happy New Year. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, and a Happy New Year to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year and a request

There has been a discussion regarding the manner that some conclusions have been paraphrased, please see the discussion here. Please also see further discussion brought to NORN here ,where I am hoping for your input. Best Regards, un☯mi 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your helpful warning should be logged in the case file

Hi, MastCell,

I see that a while ago you issued a formal warning[1] to a disruptive editor, and noted that warning in discussion of a request for arbitration enforcement,[2] but I see that the warning has not been logged in at the ArbCom case log, where I see other editors have recently logged other warnings and sanctions. I would do the logging myself if I were sure I had authority to do so (as I am not at all sure). I hate to trouble you about this, as the message at the top of your talk page makes plain that your helpful administrative work for the project has been feeling tedious to you. You definitely are not getting enough appreciation for the good work you do here. Feel free to vent over on my user talk page if being reminded that other editors admire your work (as I know they do) will help maintain morale. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello MastCell and WBB. HelloAnnyong has taken care of this. It is now the first item in the 'Notifications' section at the Log of blocks, bans and restrictions. Happy New Year to all. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for letting us know. MastCell, I hope you have a relaxing break and we'll see you back soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow

You probably already knew this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_autism_fraud SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But you see, it's all part of the coverup. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Like the man said, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its socks on. But I think sanity is making a slow tactical advance in this case. Even the hardcore conspiracists and anti-vaccine stalwarts like David Kirby are starting to distance themselves from this mess. As Solzhenitsyn wrote: "There's a God in heaven after all. He's long-suffering, but when he hits you, it hurts." On the other hand, the amount of ignorance in the world is a fixed constant - if anti-vaccine nonsense takes a beating, then you'll find that some other form of ignorance is gaining strength. As far as vaccine coverage and public health, the damage is done, but Brian Deer deserves the Nobel Prize in Medicine as far as I'm concerned. MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you supposed fueled Deer's passion to uncover that fraud? Does he have autistic family? Wonder what Jenny what's-her-name is saying now. Someone should submit our MMR Vaccine article to ITN-- Eubulides kept it in good shape, and it's mainpage worthy-- but I'm off to bed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

McCarthy. And I hope having nice long look in the mirror.--Tznkai (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fools! Now is the time to fall in line behind a man who has no leg to stand on. Best to seem loyal than seem wrong. In fact, I would respect McCarthy so much more if she doubled her efforts!!! to keep children from being vaccinated. I suggest donning a superhero outfit, going to medical clinics, and slapping vaccination bottles and syringes out of the hands of doctors. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize there's plenty of progress in this revelation, but there's something missing. The reason people like McCarthy will go to such lengths to promote a false theory is because of the crushing loss they experience in their lives. Though falsehoods shouldn't be left alone, the proper context for these people (the promoters if not the original researchers) is not 'charlatans' but mislead sufferers. Ocaasi (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The work done to discredit vaccines causes the spread of fatal childhood illnesses. McCarthy has an autistic child. Several parents lost their children because, no doubt, they believed the study so intently championed by McCarthy and other celebrities. I'm not sure what your point is--suffering excuses bad arguments or ignoring logical thinking--because that would excuse the parents whose unvaccinated children are dead from being prosecuted for lynching McCarthy and Wakefield. My suffering is more legitimate than yours. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gloss over the real consequences of misinformation. I think it helps to understand where people are coming from. You won't have much luck getting someone dead-set on chelation therapy to care that someone else's kid might get the measles when their kid can't get the cheerios into their mouth or tie their own shoes. I think that's important, at least as a way to understand how to speak to people who have the belief that vaccines cause autism. You don't easily get emotionally invested people to change their behavior by telling them their facts are wrong. It requires some way to transfer or process the attached emotional weight which a pseudoscientific belief has carried, and to move the person onto a different track. Many, many people who eschew and abandon science do so because they want hope and community, and they need targets of blame (industry, establishment, etc.) Those people, if they are to change, also need to be welcomed with the hope that science provides, the hatred of slow research and biological ignorance, and the communities of people--also in pain, also doing as much as they can, also willing to try everything (that at least doesn't hurt). No comparison of suffering, only an acknowledgment that one side has it. Ocaasi (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think some parents are reachable via logic, compassion, emotion, understanding or anything else. And I abhor how they damage children, because of their own obsessions. BTDT, and I think there is usually some underlying obsessive pathology involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

People have a deep need to know why these things happen, and science isn't very good at the why questions when it comes to autism (or cancer, or chronic fatigue, or what-have-you). In my experience, when people learn that they have cancer, their #1 question has nothing to do with their diagnosis, or treatment options, or prognosis. It's: Why did I get cancer? I suspect that the situation is similar with autism. We don't have good scientific answers to these questions, and the metaphysical and religious answers are, frankly, unsatisfying to most people. So it's very powerful when someone says definitively: "I know why you got cancer/autism/chronic fatigue syndrome/etc. It's because of vaccines, or candidal overgrowth, or Epstein-Barr virus, or invisible parasites." Once an idea like that takes root, then no amount of negative studies can dislodge it, because it's not a rationally based idea in the first place. Ocaasi and Sandy are both saying the same thing, essentially, and I agree: you can't combat an irrational belief with scientific papers or research. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree somewhat with Ocaasi, it's the damn fringe science that keeps parents deluded, and parents want desperately to believe anything, and then a celebrity like McCarthy furthers it, damaging innocent children. If she lends her voice to fraud, she pays the price. Anyway, this is going on the mainpage, ITN, so we need all hands on deck on all related articles (Andrew Wakefield, Brian Deer, MMR vaccine controversy and autism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Greed. Well known to make people take leave of their senses. Colin°^Talk 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Apropos McCarthy (wash mouth after saying her name....), check out Jenny McCarthy Body Count, an interesting website....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Edit conflict, re: some of the above... Ultimately, people who have a public platform are responsible for how they use it. I suspect that people who promote ethnic, religious, or homophobic hatred are on some level acting out of personal suffering. At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, even Hitler was motivated partly by a sense of personal loss and suffering. At some point, though, a person's actions have to be judged not only by their internal motivations, but by how they affect other people.

  That said, I would certainly draw a distinction between someone like Jenny McCarthy - a mother dealing with a challenging situation and lacking medical or scientific sophistication - and someone like Andrew Wakefield. I know that Jenny McCarthy is sort of a lightning rod, in part because of her aggressive advocacy for her viewpoint and her rejection of scientific approaches, but in the end I think people know what they're getting when they listen to her. There's nothing deceptive about how Jenny McCarthy presents herself. I can empathize with, if not condone, her response to the challenge of having an autistic child. I'm much less inclined to empathy when it comes to people who manipulate and prey on the suffering, especially when they do so under the cover of science, and when they resort to outright deception.

  This sort of thing is ubiquitous at the limits of what modern medicine can accomplish. If you look at incurable cancer, or disabling but medically unexplained symptoms, or parents whose children have autism, or even people with severe chronic back pain, you see people who have been told that medicine has little or nothing in the way of answers. Sometimes that message is conveyed without sensitivity, unfortunately. People in these sorts of desperate situations are incredibly vulnerable, and from time immemorial they have preyed upon by all manner of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. Personally, I see that as problematic. I can understand the impulse that drives people to these sorts of treatments. Like anyone with experience in oncology, I can even understand the impulse to find something, anything, to offer people in desperate straits, even if its chance of success is marginal at best. But I can't understand or excuse dishonesty, particularly when it's overlaid with personal financial gain and devastating public-health consequences. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good points-- somewhere in between the McCarthy's and the Wakefields are the desperate parents who also have some version of scientific or medical training or credentials, and I 'spose my real disdain is reserved for how they damage children when they promote bad science. And then there's Swedo and PANDAS ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to express this because it's still nebulous in my mind, but it appears both science and society are working toward the goal of attempting to make us as immortal as possible so that we may continue our belief that we are significant and special. Not simply unique individuals, but special. I'm assuming, based on my experience as a teacher and not as a parent, that many parents experience pain viewing their children's imperfections because they don't come to grips with the fact that often children aren't perfect--and the designation of perfect is too subjective. Random occurrences, such as the diagnosis of a disorder or even infant mortality, naturally occurring for millenia in humans, are incomprehensible, specifically recently in Western cultures. The pain parents go through is a reflection of their conflict that they and their children deserve better, when in fact nothing, not even science or religion, can promise us that. McCarthy and other parents are frustrated and angry because they expected something that did not happen. Science does its best to alleviate that frustration and anger to prevent more imperfections so that people may continue to have faith in their significance. --Moni3 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That was very nicely said. As for immortality and science, you should pick up a copy of Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near. We do have expectations of perfection, and it is a modern, 'western' view that problems can be solved and people can be fixed. Blame science for that. (We know what Christianity and other traditional religions have to say about fate, folly, and human perfectability). Autism seems particularly cruel because it strikes in childhood and without warning. I have no sense of the magnitude of pain cancer causes, but at least it tends to come on later in life and has some clear genetic/environmental triggers. Autism is like a demon that only haunts children and leaves no trace.

I think science should try to mimic some of the non-content practices of much of the alternative medicine. Not the 'we'll sell you a cure part' but the we know there's an answer (genes or neurological growth or toxins) and we do blame the enemy (genes or neurological growth or toxins and slow research) and we will fight the enemy (with research and more research) and we will cure your child with our magic (evidence based medicine), and group up to fight to do it.

But alternative medicine will always provide that perception of extra. Like, I prepared for this marathon, but I also wore my lucky shoes and did three heel spins... superstition is the way we trigger our placebo effect. People pursue these cures as ritual, because it's a behavior they can link to an intention, that they can attach to a boogeyman, in an attempt to remain special, relevant, and meaningful to the universe. Who wouldn't want that? Science says 'we'll make you better' but it doesn't say anything about meaning. It should. It should say, "we keep you alive, so you can find meaning". A thoughtful wikiday. Ocaasi (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude. What. the. fuck... --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't reach these people with scientific logic. My outrage is for what they do their children, more so with Tourette's, where most kids grow out of it and would be just fine if their parents didn't make it such a problem and make their tics the center of their lives, and their childhood all about the "relentless pursuit of cure", and their self-image all about tics. Pity the children with obsessive parents, destroying a child's self-identity in the relentness pursuit of quackery, when acceptance is a better fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems that Jenny thinks it's "much ado about nothing"; too bad children died. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your child died because an unimmunized kid licked him at daycare? Too bad you're not Indigo. That would have made a difference. Have this autographed photo of me to battle your soul-crushing sadness. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it a little odd that McCarthy, and not Wakefield is drawing so much ire. McCarty is a parent of an autistic child, and in my mind a victim of Wakefield's fraud. While she's gone on to cause a great deal of damage by adding celebrity to the cause, she seems to have been following predictable patterns in the vulnerability of the human mind: the need for answers, the just-world hypothesis, and the vulnerabilities we all share to conspiracy theories. The particular nonsense she does is otherwise just typical of the shallow nonsense that the famous use to promote what causes they find worthy, by trading on their fame.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's very understandable, but (unsurprisingly) not very wise of her. She should be wise enough to stick to her area of expertise....eye candy. There are areas where misguided activism doesn't have such a price, but here children are hurt. That's pretty low. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously unwise, yes, but I save my anger at those in whom fail in trust or wisdom when they have public trust invested in them. Our leaders and our professionals. McCarthy isn't either one of those, so as much as I wish her efforts to fail, and support counter action to ensure it, I have no personal animosity for her. While its fair to say by acting as if she a leader, she's opened herself up to the attack, I just don't see why we have to indulge her.--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Tznkai: you can't expect better from someone like JM. More constructively, we need to figure out how to communicate with the touchy-feely types. They're not going to be reached by statistics or rational evidence. It's interesting to watch a show like "Oprah" (just once) and try to get an idea for how such people think and listen. I don't know how to do it, but it's a segment of the population that needs to be reached. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great when celebrities use their fame for good causes. Controversial fringe medicine is not a good cause, but celebrity attention is a boon for lots of conditions. McCarthy is not really to blame, though she is somewhat responsible since she put her name, face, voice, and reputation behind it. She needed to really understand the science before doing this, and it's unlikely she did (though she might have thought she did or trusted the people who informed her).

The way to get to touchy feely people is with touchy feely language. People choose alternative medicine not for what it does but because of how it feels. AltMed doesn't just treat a condition, it targets the mind and spirit of the patient. That stress reduction, improved self-concept, etc. are benefits that can be extracted and included with real medicine. There's no good reason that people with [cancer] shouldn't be doing positive visualization, self-talk, relaxation techniques, etc. And AltMed involves human agency in a direct way--either the healing knowledge of the practitioner or the self-healing of the patient. Mature scientific disciplines don't require much of human anything, since bodies of knowledge become standardized and codified. This healing is really touching, and doctors should encourage people to be touched (socially, physically) during illness, since it makes them feel less lonely and more a part of something, more cared for.

When you tell someone who feels better because they believe X that X is incorrect, they interpret it as saying that "feeling better" is incorrect. Explain that the "feeling" of AltMed is the most powerful visualization tool people have, and visualization guides our healing. This lets them keep feeling hope, and feeling involved. Then explain that apparent (fallacious) connections between causes and AltMed practices can be explained through incidental or conflating factors, that science works to account only for connections that can't be explained by mistakes, and that no matter how good something feels you want to do the thing that is also not going to cause harm, which science helps minimize. I don't know for sure, but that's where I'd start. Not, 'hey, you're an idiot and you're going to kill kids'. Ocaasi (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If alternative medicine is promoted honestly, as in "this will reduce your stress level and make you feel more whole", then who could argue? But if it were promoted that way, I suspect that substantially fewer people would buy into it. Instead, it's promoted as a cure, as a valid biological approach in its own right, and in many cases, that's dishonest. If you look at the most popular (and most lucrative) forms of alternative medicine, they tend to eschew the holistic and subjective language you've used, and instead explicitly claim the trappings of science, of "clinically proven" results. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Thats the rub, isn't it? A lot of this stuff that can be defended on its emotional value (and partisan media comes to mind) requires that the consumer not be in on the joke. AltMed makes (many) people feel better because its supposedly scientific. Partisan media is entertaining because its supposedly truthful journalism, and so on and so forth. Not saying that these people are inherently unreachable or immune to facts or anything, but the whole structure depends on a certain amount of charlatanism.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that's true, and interestingly also plays into the placebo effect... because people believe more strongly in something's value if they've paid for it rather than if we've gotten it for free (an insight of behavioral economics). And when people look to visualize, they use hyperbole. But what is stronger than science? So AltMed steals its language, because it is the strongest visualization. Really a great though backhanded complement. I think it is also worth mentioning that the many profiteers of AltMed believe it too, are no better educated in science than the average Opera watcher, and are unlikely to critically investigate claims if for no other reason than their livelihood depends on it. And yes, charlatanism is a part of it, because the charlatan is the suggestion-giver, the visualization leader, the placebo inducer. Ocaasi (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this episode does show that there is a place for investigative journalism in science? Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'da thought this would have shown that. --Moni3 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's another good example. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Before we jump on that bandwagon, let's be clear that journalists created this monster. Someone reading the scientific literature alone would never have been taken in by this for a second. In fact, the response of the scientific community was immediately and justifiably skeptical. On the other hand, someone reading only popular journalism without a handle on the scientific literature would likely have a skewed impression of the credibility of Wakefield's hypothesis, and would likely believe that there was a robust and two-sided scientific controversy here when, in fact, there was one dubious paper and an avalanche of high-quality studies contradicting its conclusions.

Think about what happened here. Even before Wakefield's dubious behavior came to light, there was never a shred of evidence that would impress a critically thinking, scientifically literate individual as anything other than wildly speculative. On the other hand, there was a mountain of high-quality scientific evidence contradicting the vaccine-autism hypothesis. The Institute of Medicine concluded ~7 years ago that this was nonsense (and its panelists were threatened with death for their efforts). But journalists, with their insistence on horse-race, he-said-she-said, false-equivalence approach, kept this alive in the popular mind.

And it wasn't a scientific study that brought down the house of cards - it was the personal ethical failings of individual scientists. Which is, frankly, fucked. You could show a journalist a dozen rock-solid scientific studies and they'd yawn, but give them a juicy personal scandal and you've got front-page news. Kudos to Brian Deer - he did credit to the ideals of his profession, and without him the scientific community would still be voices in the wilderness on this issue. But let's stop short of cheerleading for science journalists. Deer cleaned up a mess that they played a central role in creating. MastCell ^Talk 00:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to take the role of possible Wikipedia reader for a moment. I have children and me and my wife have friends who have children with autism. When we had our children, starting around 10 years ago, we were aware of the theories that vaccinations might contribute to autism. It took me all of about 10 minutes of looking around the Internet to figure out that the vaccination theory was dubious. I saw the news stories promoting the vaccination theory, but I could judge the validity of the competing ideas by looking at the strengths of the arguments presented in each report, not necessarily because some were written, supposedly, by scientists and some by journalists. Same thing with Wikipedia's readers. We source the information in the articles, and they look at the sources and figure out for themselves which of them appear to have a better claim on the truth. Investigative journalists, like Mr. Deer or Mr. Schilt, establish credibility by the strength of their reporting and soundness of the conclusions they draw, based, of course, on the evidence and reasoning they present. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The singular of "data" is not "anecdote". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could be interpreted by some that a big flaw with Wikipedia's policies is that it allows "too much" information to be given to our readers. I don't think so, however. Anyway, this discussion is about, among several other things, the fact that an apparently fine piece of investigative journalism has helped shed further light on a controversial subject. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Media role discussed at The American Spectator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting perspective, but I'm not sure how much weight we should give to the views of a guy who also runs this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Party pooper! Give me a hand ... someone needs to write a neutral paragraph stating that Wakefield killed children. I'm googling for info, but I can't write it neutrally because, ummm ... Wakefield killed children. Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Deaths. Need to find CDC info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Boris beat me to it... since the American Spectator historically provided a platform for Tom Bethell's AIDS denialism, which is the archetypal pseudoscience-spread-through-the-Internet, it's a little hard to view them as part of the solution. I guess we should be glad they've moved on from calling Anita Hill a slut, though. Since it's the Spectator, you know the other shoe is going to drop at some point, and sure enough, the second half of the article is devoted to dismissing the links between Vioxx and heart disease, SSRIs and suicidality, Avandia and heart failure, hormone replacement and breast cancer... all of which are taken a bit more seriously by the scientific community than Wakefield was. In the end, they're basically using Wakefield as a prop for their broader anti-regulatory agenda. I'll look for other sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You would refuse to put a useful perspective into a Wikipedia article just because you personally don't approve of the source, even though it meets WP's definition as reliable? I think it should be added and attributed, so that our readers could do what you just did, evaluate the credibility and validity of the source on their own. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Which "useful perspective" are you talking about? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What perspective are we talking about? Do you mean the American Spectator article? I don't really see that magazine as a useful source on Wikipedia, unless the goal is explicitly to illustrate a partisan conservative take on an issue. As you know, the reliability of a source depends in large part on how we use it, and I certainly wouldn't make a blanket statement that the Spectator is a reliable source without qualification. It's certainly not a good source for unqualified BLP assertions - I would hope that its assertions about Anita Hill, for instance, are not repeated in our biography. Perhaps you disagree. In any case, if our goal is to limn the media's role in the vaccine-autism scare, I think we can find superior sources.

More generally, I'm always a bit disappointed when people play the "let-the-readers-decide" card. It's superficially appealing, because it makes me sound like an elitist who wants to keep information from the masses for their own good. But it ignores the reality of what we do as editors, which is fundamentally to make decisions about the quality of sources. Yet anytime someone argues against a source on grounds of quality, the knee-jerk reaction is to "let the reader decide". That would be appropriate if Wikipedia were a search engine providing massive, unrefined data dumps, but it's a totally inappropriate attitude for an encyclopedia, where our goal is to refine raw sources into a serious, respectable reference work.

Part of that process involves discarding sources which are partisan, low-quality, or unserious, except for certain circumscribed uses. But the culture of this site has always had trouble with that idea, which is part of why this place is so deeply dysfunctional. MastCell ^Talk 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that WP:V states The appropriateness of any source depends on the context, not If it's verifiable it's gotta go in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Spectator quote is last, because it's the most recent and provides a good, pithy closure to the section. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice that in the time it took for you all to argue about why a specific source couldn't be used, I was able to get two paragraphs written and published using that and several other sources. Just get the cited information out there in a presentable manner and let the reader decide what to do with it. Cla68 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a minor quibble, I haven't spent much time arguing about this (or, indeed, doing anything at all on Wikipedia recently). You asked what I would call a very leading question and I answered. Honestly, I haven't felt like contributing at all recently, outside of a few talkpage conversations here and there. I think that evaluating the quality of sources (sometimes negatively) is an important part of editing, rather than a distraction, as you've framed it. In any case, while I continue to think that the Spectator is a poor source for the article, I think the passage you wrote looks good on the whole and adds to the article, so thank you (honestly) for putting it together and adding it. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Can't pull up the original paper here, but it sounds obviously flawed (and I see it got a lot of flak in the letters that followed it). What's the scoop on Wakefield's 12 co-authors, plus peer reviewers and journal editors? Conspiracy, group-reinforced delusion, CV-padding, other? Postpostmod (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your help! Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Law school debt

Hey, I saw your question about 5 days ago on NewYorkBrad's userpage and saw that it was unanswered, so I'll try to answer it for you since I have asked the same question a couple years ago. http://esqnever.blogspot.com/ That answers your question about law school. As for med school, if you have $300k in debt at 5% interests, plus principle paydown of about 5%, then your payments are about $30k per year. Everybody can match into IM residency, where you'll be starting at a minumum of $150k per year. Get into a specialty like Derm/Plastics/RadOnc and the minimum is about double. If you're smart enough for med school (decent Mcat and Gpa) then go to med school. If you can't get in, try doing Physicians Assistant program. They make about $100k per year, also have a nearly 100% employment rate, and you won't go into as much debt and could possibly work part time while in school, thus lowering your debt. Good luck and I hope this helps. Other degrees which are good for $$$ and employment rate are: engineering, nursing, accounting/finance, and computer science & IT. Brain Before Life (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense from a purely financial point of view (except that the average resident's salary is closer to $40,000 than $150,000, but once residency is finished, 3-6 years after graduating from medical school, physicians can expect a substantial increase in income). But it's not purely a matter of whether one is "smart enough" to get into med school. You have to actually enjoy medicine. I've seen a lot of people who were smart enough to get into med school, and who understood the financial calculations you've outlined, but they didn't love the actual practice of medicine. The problem is that the job is so challenging and all-consuming that if you don't love doing it, it will grind you down. People like that are miserable, because they're essentially trapped by their investment of time, energy, and money into a demanding career which they don't find rewarding.

PA school seems to be increasingly popular, and I can understand why - the opportunities are incredible for well-trained PA's, with essentially guaranteed employment and excellent salary/benefits, especially in relation to the amount of formal training. It's not unusual for a PA to out-earn a physician, especially a physician in academic medicine. It seems to me that admission to PA school has become incredibly competitive, though - if not quite on par with med school, then at least in the same ballpark. And the people who excel in the field tend to chafe against the ceiling imposed by the restrictions on PAs. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Every lawyer, doctor and PA, that I know gains Informed consent before taking action on someone's privately held issues. Please consider what the real value is in these professions. Each has the potential to earn way beyond the norms and their debt levels, simply by providing ethical and fundamental beneficial services to help people, and not unfairly harm them for their own selfish base reward. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I being POV-y?

Hi MastCell. I wrote an article on the recently decided Mayo v. United States today and have nominated it at DYK. Someone on IRC mentioned that it seemed like the article and the proposed hook did not fully meet NPOV. I would appreciate it if you or a talk page watcher could take a look at it and tell me what you think. NW (Talk) 06:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NW, I've given up trying to sort that (DYK) talk page; what is the hook and what is the source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The problem is with DYK itself; any attempt to boil down a complex two-sided issue into a half-sentence soundbite is going to strike someone as POV. I don't know enough about the process to know whether the concerns are deal-breakers, but I would keep trying, because overall it looks like a well-written and neutral article. Thanks for working on it. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. Sandy, the source isn't the issue, but the hook is "... that the Mayo Clinic argued in Mayo v. United States that residents who work up to 80 hours a week[3][4] and are paid approximately $50,000 a year[5] should not be considered employees but students instead?[6]" I think that MastCell is right that the problem arises from trying to choosing one interesting fact from of a complex legal case. I was wondering if the hook could be changed or replaced with something better. NW (Talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You could go with something like "... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mayo v. United States that medical residents are employees, rather than students, for purposes of taxation." That way, it's more just-the-facts; when you cite the work hours and salary, it sounds more like you're making a case. On the other hand, my proposed hook may substantially obscure some of the finer points of the decision. Anyhow, just a suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't one problem with that hook be that the average reader probably wouldn't know what a resident is and would therefore have no reason to care to read the article? NW (Talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point, although in these post-House and -Grey's Anatomy days the concept may be more familiar. You could say "resident physicians", but I'm not sure that's any grabbier. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your off-topic question

Just noting here that I responded to a post you put on my talkpage a few days ago. I don't usually bother with giving "talkback" messages, but thought I should this time as you might otherwise miss my response in the flurry of other business. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, and thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology and consent request

Apparently, someone suggested I may have offended you. So I must offer an apology, with a request to seek clarification on these concerns. Would you mind if I ask other folks their opinions (on) your actions? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(Just kibitzing...) The most appropriate place to seek clarification regarding the terms and conditions of your topic ban is almost certainly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. "Ask[ing] other folks their opinions" is a rather broad request. If it means contacting other editors who were involved in climate change disputes (formally sanctioned by ArbCom or not) – or who you might reasonably suspect are otherwise predisposed to your position in the MfD – then you run a serious risk of violating both your topic ban and WP:CANVASS. Regardless of how MastCell might respond to your request, it would be beyond his authority to grant you leave to overstep either provision.

If you wish to seek a formal sanction of MastCell, then that runs through the usual dispute resolution forums, from WP:AN/I all the way up to ArbCom. If you're unsure about how such processes would interact with your topic ban, I would again recommend seeking ArbCom clarification first. Frankly, I don't recommend this approach, as MastCell's conduct has been entirely proper and you might be sanctioned for pursuing a frivolous request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was considering Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first, for uninvolved input. I am sure, I would like clarification on the "frivolous" concerns too. There can be no battle ground when folks consent to a peaceful dispute for resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not easily offended, so you don't need to apologize for offending me, although it's kind of you to do so. Really, I'd just like to keep things focused on site policy rather than personalities. If there's a question as to whether a page should be deleted, then I'd like to have that discussion grounded in policy, rather than in accusations of personal malice. Not because I'm offended, but because I think it's the best way to handle things. As far as seeking further input about my actions, you're of course welcome to do so in any venue that you think is appropriate under existing site guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that you took action without consensus, no one had any issues, until you decided to selectively escalate the issue. Is this an abuse of policy? ... well that's what we should get clarified. I hope you agree this is really beneficial to Wikipedia, I am not seeking an administrative action for you, maybe just a minor warning. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What action did I take without consensus? I contacted you to discuss whether the pages in question met site content guidelines. When it became clear we were unlikely to reach agreement, I submitted the matter to WP:MfD for outside input. The whole point of WP:MfD is to determine whether a consensus exists to delete a page. It's unclear to me why you think "consensus" is required to submit an article for discussion there. Certainly this site's guidelines and policies don't suggest any such thing. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I remain clearly open for agreements, it's difficult now that this has been escalated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think it's flatly untrue that you are "open for agreements". When I approached you with a policy-based concern about the pages, you told me to "go away and bother someone else". When I tried to elaborate on my concern with further reference to site policy, you demanded that I stop and accused me of harassment ([7]). While I disagree that I was in any way "harassing" you, I respected your request to cease posting to your talk page. You then hatted the entire thread with a summary of "Bothersome". I did not interpret those as the actions of someone "open to agreement". The policy-prescribed next step to address my concerns was WP:MfD, where I submitted the pages for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(I note parenthetically that ZuluPapa5 added a passage to WP:CIV a few minutes before his comment here that reflects his rather idiosyncratic understanding of consensus-building and dispute resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Note, WMC has once again [8] deleted my contribution, as if WP:hounding my user contribution list for disputes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I don't have any interest in editing (or arguing about) WP:CIV at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)