User talk:Bookish

Hello Bookish! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
Where to ask a question Help Desk
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Major religions chart

Hi, there's a spelling error in the chart -- "indigenous" rather than "indiginous". Just thought I'd let you know. (: --Denihilonihil 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid like the plague

I’ve just read your message and liked the web site you linked to. I wonder if you could post a similar message at the bottom of this talk RFAR page [1]. I’m not asking you to engage in the discussion. Just to post your already written comment there and that’s it (perhaps the only needed change would be to add my name instead of the “you”). I agree with your comment: after this process is over I will avoid psychiatry/psychology articles like the plague. There’s much work to do in traumatogenic mode of childrearing articles such as the one you have been improving greatly in the last few days. —Cesar Tort 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right: that talk page is too long to read. What about another Rfar talk page? This one is pretty short for example [2] and the discussion is related to your two communications and links you called my attention to. When this Rfar process is over I’ll see what can I do for the Psychogenic article. —Cesar Tort 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were intended to illustrate why I don't believe Arbitration can resolve this type of bias. I have no wish to become involved in the debate. I understand that this dispute must be a source of stress, but I really don't believe posting the links will help. It might only antagonize the other parties to the debate. For your sake, I hope the proceedings come to an end soon. -- Bookish 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section of draft

I’ve just posted something in User:Cesar Tort/discussion (and an explanation at the bottom of its talk page [3]) as a draft for the new article. Any comment or criticism will be welcomed. —Cesar Tort 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive mails

Hi Bookish. Excellent job on the psychohistory article. Congrats again. Lloyd will love it!

I just want to let you know that I’m going to archive my user mails. If you want to add another link or reference please do it here [4]. —Cesar Tort 00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro summary

Thanks for your suggestions for the intro summary! I already incorporated it to the Biopsychiatry Controversy article. Re the Moynihan and Alan Cassels’ book, I used it instead for the Antipsychiatry article. The reason I left the Big Pharma stuff for the Anti article is that it strikes me a bit more as a financial/political issue than a scientific one. (BTW, I have used the Whitaker book in the Controversy article.)

I will copy and paste at the top of User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion the references you had posted in my (now archived) talk page for you convenience. —Cesar Tort 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your recent posting. Please wait until I rearrange that page so that your entries don’t merge with my radical rearrangement. —Cesar Tort 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I added more before reading my talk page. -- Bookish 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit section?

Hi. I agree with you about the genetic section. That section was basically rewritten by Rockpocket from old version in Antipsychiatry article and I didn’t want to mess with it then. So this time, and only this time, may I ask you to edit that section? —Cesar Tort 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is easier to be a critic than to compose something better. I will work on it, but it may take some time. When I have a draft I will post it on your discussion page.

Regarding the "Who are the others?" comments:

Articles submitted to scientific journals are nearly always rejected if they attribute evidence to someone other than the author without a reference. The harshest critics of your article will be the readers with a scientific education.

Regarding twin studies studies:

The truth is, it's only twin studies that provide statistically significant evidence. Everthing else is anecdotal.

Regarding Rockpocket's touchups:

Changing "brushed aside" to "marginalized" is fair. I also agree with Rockpocket that linking the years seems unnecessary. The text looks cleaner without that. Can you do the same for the other instances? -- Bookish 11:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar: I hope you noticed the new link at the top of your discussion page. Thanks for providing your email address. Anyone can see what you've written anywhere on Wikipedia simply by clicking on your "User Contributions" link. However, I thought I'd explain something to you about the authors we both like. When I first read books by A.M. I searched for forums and mailing lists where I could compare notes with other readers. After having participated in a mailing list and a forum for a month or two I grew tired of the discussions. Why? Because, however they started out, they always ended up as lengthy debates over points of theory. I came to the conclusion that the best way is to meet with an enlightened reader in person. Back-and-forth discussions in cyberspace have a different quality: Write something, wait a day or two, read the reply, write something more, wait a day or two,... and on and on. -- Bookish 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I like the accusatorial, literary, unabashedly emotional, brutally honest, thoroughgoing povish, un-encyclopedic [5], vindictive, cathartic and saving (for victim readers too) autobiographical book format: you can literally pour your mind there. Not even Miller has explored this to its ultimate consequence.

Re new link, yes: I already incorporated it to the article. And thanks for your advice about cult info in another editor talk page! —Cesar Tort 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Eschatology before, so I didn't even know the word was a general term for "end of the world" theologies. If you register on the RickRoss.net forum you may be able to contact someone who has more info about the Eschatology Foundation. -- Bookish 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Studies

Hello Bookish. I thought it better i communicate with you here rather than across a multitude of cross references threads. I'm sorry if your communications to Cesar on his subpage were of a rhetorical nature. I simply saw you question my motivation, and therefore answered your question, before Cesar moved the comments to the talk page.

Anyway, you said, "if it was my article I would have tackled the issues in a completely different way." well it is your article as much as it is mine or anyone elses. If you feel you can improve the article then please do so. However, as you say yourself "many tentative research studies suggestive of a link between gene regions and schizophrenia". You then question whether they have been replicated. This recent review says (my bold) "After years of frustration, the search for genes impacting on schizophrenia is now undergoing some exciting developments. Several proposals of susceptibility genes have been able to be supported by replications. Thus, there are now at least three very strong candidates: the gene for dysbindin (DTNBP1), the gene for neuregulin-1 (NRG1), and a less well-understood gene locus, G72/G30, which are likely to influence manifestations of schizophrenia. Other "hot" candidates such as the disrupted-in-schizophrenia 1 gene (DISC1) and the gene coding for protein kinase B (AKT1) might also prove to be susceptibility genes in the next future."

Thus while non twin genetic linkage studies have yet to prove anything about behavioural heretability, they certainly are strongly suggestive. That is the context they were being mentioned in the article and that is why i can see no reason to remove it. Rockpocket 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look a some of the phrases you used above:

strong candidates, likely to influence, "hot" candidates, might also prove, strongly suggestive.

That's not the language of hard science. It amounts to quibbling over premature claims. How many of the authors are exaggerating the portent of their findings in the hope of obtaining more funding? These are exactly the sort of issues that should be raised in the article. I do question your motivation. I've suspected it for quite a while.

I originally registered as a Wikipedia user because there was a notice at the top of an article asking for an image to accompany the text (and only registered users can upload images). At first I was full of enthusiasm. My contributions spanned several subject areas, and included several new images. Later, I noticed how much vandalism is going on, and how feeble the countermeasures are (I wrote about it on my user page). I've corrected vandalism from more than one unregistered mischief maker using a static IP address. And what did I find on the vandals' talk pages? Multiple warnings which failed to act as a deterrent.

That alone would have been enough to dampen my enthusiasm. But I also witnessed bitter NPOV disputes and Cesar's ArbCom case (some of the things you and JFW wrote don't do either of you credit). I would not be upset if I was prevented from further participation as a registered user. I shelved my plan to create an English version of a German Wikipedia article.

I don't always log in before I make edits. Usually, it's only when I have a significant amount of material prepared, or to sign an entry on a talk page. Controversial Wikipedia articles of any kind are always going to be vulnerable to bias and sabotage. It's something that can only be overcome by changing the ground rules. Vandalism gets reverted, but hours and hours of work could be subtly compromised by someone with a hidden agenda. I should have read what the commentators in Category:Wikipedia_critics had to say before becoming involved. Now that I've read their articles, along with a site that's on Wikipedia's Spam blacklist, I think the criticisms are fair. I'll say bye bye, and leave you to continue following Cesar around. -- Bookish 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not my words, Bookish, they are a direct quote from the reference i provided. And the reference was provided to substatiate claims in the article using similar words "...and other research suggests that personality is heritable to some extent, the genetic basis for particular personality or temperament traits, and their links to mental health problems, is currently unclear". No-one is claiming to have all the answers, hence the qualifiers. The agenda of the person writing the review is of now interest to us, it was in the peer reviewed literature therefore it is a verifiable source.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to question my motivation, but i would ask that you read and follow WP:AGF. Everything i have proposed is within the scope of Wikipedia policy, therefore you would be correct in assuming my "agenda" is to improve the accuracy of the article. That is what i did.

I'm sorry also that you have become disillusioned with Wikipedia. It is not perfect, certainly, but by its very nature one will have to work with people with differing opinions. If you feel unable to assume good faith of editors with whom you disagree over a minor content point, perhaps it is best that you retire. Best wishes. Rockpocket 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among lawyers, the word "antinomy" refers to hidden contradictions between different parts of an established system of statutes. The same is true within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I noticed that several times you replied to objections in various parts of Wikipedia by saying "It doesn't matter," when clearly it did matter.

Problems inherent in the way Wikipedia deals with neutrality issues have been noted by many people, both within Wikipedia and elsewhere. As many outside commentators have noted, the way disagreements are handled is a colossal energy sink.

Wikipedia's problems can only really resolved as a result of pressure from outside the organization. Scandals over Wikipedia's biographies of notable living people led to personal intervention by Jimbo Wales. To discover how things turned out for the Open Directory Project just type the two words "dmoz" and "dead" into Google. The ODP is a shadow of what it once was. Wikipedia is unlikely to die, but until a different system of checks and balances are put into place, I want no part of it. -- Bookish 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Tort replies:

With all due respect, rockpocket, and pace Godwin’s law, trying to understand schizophrenia and its causes from a strictly genetic perspective is something aberrant, stupid and reactionary that will always fail: it’s like trying to understand Judaism by analyzing the genes from Jews!

According to sociologist Karl Mannheim ideology refers to a group become so intensely interest-bound to a situation that they are simply unable to acknowledge certain facts which would undermine their interests (e.g., that child abuse and psychological trauma are as mind-destroying as Auschwitz). The situation in which bioshrinks find themselves is such that they simply cannot question the validity of the medical model without committing suicide: for once the perceived ideological veil of the model is torn away, they will be revealed as total incompetents incapable of managing such mental disorders as schizophrenia in even a halfway enlightened or humane way.

It’s wholly inappropriate for bioshrinks to take pride in their supposed expertise when the problem they deal with is clearly not of a medical nature. In fact, as far as increasing their ability to understand and empathize with their patients is concerned, medicine is the very worst subject that psychiatrists are taught to dehumanize the person: to regard him or her as nothing more than a somatic machine (just like saying that only hard sciences exist but not the humanities). In view of their lack of any useful training and lack of mental insight that their training is totally useless, it’s hardly surprising that psychiatrists generally do more harm than good.

The biopsych notion that schizophrenia is a somatic condition is the ultimate way in which the establishment defends itself. As soon as the child is diagnosed, the parents conclude that all the family’s problems can be localized exclusively within the child. The parents and the society are sane; the child is sick, and the doctor will take care of everything. The parents can therefore stop worrying about their abusive behavior.

Moreover, the medical model with its concepts of “mental health” and “mental illness” also helps to stabilize society’s norms by providing a crypto-ethical standard for evaluating human conduct. What we have here is an uncritical validation of society’s taboos and moral prejudices so absolute as to suggest they are the same with the laws of universe.

The notion that persons labeled “schizophrenic” are somehow genetically flawed or inferior to other people is nothing more than a dehumanizing myth —another example of man’s inhumanity to man; a myth that the biopsych community, and especially the Legion of abusive parents, have a huge vested interest in perpetuating.

And now, Bookish: with your permission may I cut and paste this discussion to the Biopsychiatry Controversy talk page please? —Cesar Tort 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Cesar_Tort_cautioned. The mainstream, peer reviewed scientific literature I cited is appropriate and valid. It shows that the statement is verifiable and thus should remain. You are very welcome to your point of view, Cesar. But your personal opinion on genetic studies has no bearing on the matter at hand and therefore not relevent. Please remember WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, and therefore is not the place to convince people of the merits of your views.

In addition, Cesar, you should not move other editor's comments between pages. I wrote the above for the attention of Bookish and would prefer it remains on his or her talk page. Thank you. Rockpocket 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well rockpocket that the Rfar “caution” merely refers to article namespace; not to user pages. Besides: biopsych is a psycho ideology with no basis on science (in contrast to the absolute reality of child abuse and trauma). I think you will live enough to see my books translated to English, rockpocket —in which I might recount my misadventures in Wikiland.

And now: time for my wiki-vacation... —Cesar Tort 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-exile or just a break?

Hi Bookish,

I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your sound advices that helped me to improve the biopsych controversy article.

Rfar is finally over and I’ll start today with my new book. However, even though my three month wiki-addiction is over I may still edit a bit once a week.

Thanks again and see you on Sundays. —Cesar Tort 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

Status quo’s warriors are the worst offenders in wikipedia. Yes: the only way to get rid of a stalker-warrior is to get our asses out of Wikiland. Perhaps you may want to take a final look at the letter I just wrote to the land’s king? [6].

—Cesar Tort 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your chart

Having recently been told that my own contribution of data which merely sums individual country data published elsewhere violates the WP:NOR policy, I have had to flag yours as likewise constituting Original Research. The image will be deleted in 7 days. I would personally be delighted for Wikipedia to permit summarizations, visualizations, tabulations, etc... of data published elsewhere, but as my own attempts to contribute such redacted material was rejected, it is only consistent that yours be rejected on the sames grounds. For what it's worth, I would be happy to join you in an appeal to the powers that be to permit such syntheses. Regards, --Ubarfay 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Major religions 2005 pie small.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Major religions 2005 pie small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PNGOUT plugin.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PNGOUT plugin.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galápagos Islands task force

From your user page, I thought that you might be interested in joining the new Galápagos Islands task force. GregManninLB (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]