User talk:Hauskalainen/Archive2

Park51 Talk

What we are doing at the RfC is working to come up with a consensus neutral first para. The debate at the noticeboard is good; it has introduced new thinking and new editors, and has resulted in civil discussion and proposal of various options at the Talk page. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Lihapiirakka

Hello. I would like to suggest that the meat doughnut article you created be changed to "lihapiirakka" with (Fin. lit. meat pasty or meat pie) and with the explanation that it is made with doughnut dough. An English-language source can be found at: http://www.dlc.fi/~marianna/gourmet/gl_finn.htm#l. While I am happy to see the article on the pastry and appreciate you taking the time to create it, I question the validity of the translation "meat doughnut" (which I strongly feel, as do others, is not correct). It also think it would be wise to include, e.g. a link to an empanada in a "see also" section, because this is closer to what a lihapiirakka actually is. With kind regards, Leopea (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you copy the text of this article to create the lihapiirakka article and link it to the meat doughnut article (which will have to be modified). There are meat doughnuts around the world - not just Finland but also Pakistan so the article should be expanded to cover both these products. The problem as I see it is that Finns translate lihapiirakka as "meat pie" only because liha means meat and piirakka means pie. But it is a lazy translation because lihapiirakka is not a meat pie by the standards of British or American or any other English language culinary trsdition. A pie is made with pastry and this has no pastry and I shudder to think about the quality or vloume of the "meat" contained in this product. So calling it a "meat pie" is completely misleading for the English Language Wikipedia. It is, in fact, a "salt" as opposed to a "sweet" doughnut with a small amount of minced meat and rice. The article was created as a link as a branch from the doughnut article to give this as an example of a doughnut with a meat filling but I just illustrated with the one form that I had the misfortune to eat....--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest Park51 changes

Using the talk page also means giving everyone a little time to respond to your comments. You have failed to do so in this case. If in, say, a week noone has responded then that would be the appropriate moment to make your changes - especially as the edit is clearly controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I dsagree. You are making up your own rules as you go along. And that is why I am ignoring that. My edit was not "controversial". It was accurate. The center is for the WHOLE community - not just Muslims. That is what the sources saym it is what my edit says and that is not reflected in "Muslim Community Center" which you reverted to. Your edit smacks of POV. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that pretty much anything which has been discussed recently on the talk page is controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You said the edit was controversial. Where is your evidence for that? --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That the topic of it has been discussed on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Hi, I would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning for removing the Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom template from National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. One of the key functions of the institute is to assesses new pharmaceutical products and determine whether they are cost-effective and should be available through the NHS. Since the NHS is by far the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals in the UK, this gives it a very large role in the UK pharmaceutical industry. [1] Rangoon11 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I have now slightly changed the title of the relevant section of the Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom template from 'Regulatory bodies' to 'Government and regulatory bodies', as I accept that a couple of the institutions included in that section are not pure regulators but government bodies which have a large role in the UK pharmaceutical industry (of which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is one).Rangoon11 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But I thought it was rather clear from the edit summary. The template concerns an industry and NICE is neither part of that industry nor has a role in it as a regulator or as an approver regarding the safety or effectiveness of their products. Its decisions do, indirectly, of course affect the sales achievement of particular products but those products are not exclusively pharmaceutical, nor are NICE's activities aimed particularly towards the activities of an industry as whole (the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical devices industry etc) nor does not act directly to affect any particular entity within those industries save for the NHS, which is NOT part of the pharmaceutical industry. But you are of course correct that the NHS is a dominant player and its decisions are important. But that alone does not justify the template you tried to add. I personally believe that your adding it was misleading because NICE is not a part of the industry and it is not a regulator of the industry or any of its members. NICE performs comparative effectiveness research on medical interventions. It is indifferent to where those interventions come from so it is not a body of government specifically targeted at that industry in the same way as the Medicines Control Agency is (or was).--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and let me say that I completely respect your views, particularly as I appreciate that you are highly knowledgeable in the area of health care. I would however like if possible to reach some consensus on the inclusion of NICE in some way in the template, purely because I feel that its presence in the template will be useful to readers. I can assure you that I have no 'axe to grind'.

Let me try and explain my thinkng more clearly. Firstly, Wikipedia templates are thematic and not strictly definitional and the inclusion of NICE within the Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom template should not be interpeted to mean that NICE is a 'part' of the 'pharmaceutical industry in the UK', merely that it is so strongly connected with that industry that its presence in the template is useful to readers and justified. Secondly, there is no objective definition of the 'pharmaceutical industry in the UK' (anymore than there is for, say, the UK film industry), any definition of what precisely constitutes the industry is by necessity subjective. Thirdly, I fully accept that NICE has activities which are not connected with pharmaceuticals, but then so does GlaxoSmithKline, which I hope we can agree is part of the UK pharmaceutical industry.

You acknowledge that some of the actions of NICE involve pharmaceuticals and have a big impact on the sale of pharmaceuticals in the UK. Is your issue with NICE being included in this template per se, or merely the title of the section of the template that it falls within?

I note again that I have now changed the title of the relevant section of the template from 'Regulatory bodies' to 'Government and regulatory bodies', and I fully accept that NICE is not a 'pure' pharmaceuticals regulator, or even a 'regulator' at all in the strictest sense of the term, and that the template before your contribution was flawed in that respect.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Is your issue with NICE being included in this template per se, or merely the title of the section of the template that it falls within?" The answer is, unfortunately, neither. It is the implication that NICE is connected to the Pharmaceutical Industry when it is really independent of it and not focused on it either. Maybe I am being over-sensitive here but I have come across editors in my writings here and in sources I have found journalists and writers (who really ought to know better) that the NICE for example refuses the people in the UK access to medical therapies as if it were a regulator. Now I am sure you appreciate that that is a wholly incorrect characterization, but it is because I do not want Wikipedia to reinforces that false impression that some people have I think that it would be misleading to add that template. It gives a misleading impression. If there is an NHS template, that would be more appropriate, but not a pharmaceutical industry template.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your sensitivity as I know that healthcare can be a highly emotive issue but, as someone who is personally completely agnostic on the merits or otherwise of NICE and its role in UK healthcare, I honestly feel that your concerns are best addressed through improvements to the text of the NICE article itself. To exclude NICE from the template is to deny that NICE has a connection with the pharmacuetical industry in the UK, which, at least in the common view of the UK media, is incorrect. As someone who has come to this issue with no prior preconceptions I feel that I cannot ignore the very frequent media references to NICE in the context of UK pharmaceuticals.

Your main issue seems to be people perceiving NICE and its activities unfairly or negatively, and I think that that is a perfectly reasonable concern. In my view it is best tackled head-on in the NICE article however. I am happy to help you in improving that article, if you wish, as I can see that the article does have issues. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Please stop trying to attribute motives for my actions in opposing your addition. I have said very clearly that NICE is not a regulatory body for the pharmaceutical industry and that it is independent of the pharmaceutical industry and that is why it does not deserve to be linked in this way and that we should not, however innocently, try to create one. The vast majority (I have no idea of the percentage but I would guess more than 99.99%) have never been the subject of a NICE appraisal. It is not an irrelevant body in terms of pharmacological interventions but its relevance is easily blown out of proportion. It does not assess whether or not interventions are effective according to the license granted and the majority of NICE's activities are not associated with medicines per se. They include medical devices, diagnostic techniques such as tests, surgical procedures, general guidance, health promotion. Clinical guidance is a huge part of their work. For these main reasons I do not think that it is appropriate. You said that "to exclude NICE from the template is to deny that NICE has a connection with the pharmaceutical industry in the UK". That is a very strong statement and I reject it totally. Your desire to add it to the template overplays hugely NICE's affect on the industry. The connection is relatively minor and only indirect. NICE would be blind about whether a medical intervention comes from a pharmaceutical company, a devices manufacturer, or even neutraceuticals company. I cannot think of a single instance where NICE decision has affected the industry and it is quite rare that an individual pharmaceutical product is the subject of a NICE decision. That is why I think your edit is inappropriate. And now I do not intent to debate this with you further. You asked for my opinion and I have given it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning at length, and for providing a number of valid and persuasive reasons for exclusion. Based on your comments I agree that the industry template will not be included in the NICE article, and will also now remove NICE from the template itself. When I get some time I will try to do some further personal research on the scope of activities of NICE and its level of inter-relationship with the industry. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Courtesy notification NickCT (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary abbrevations

Please note that "rvv" specifically means "reverting vandalism" - since you went on to say that you didn't understand the edit and would like an explanation on talk, it would appear that you didn't intend to call it vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. You are right. I know that but I must have mistyped an extra v by mistake. I have restricted vision and I am not a very good typist. I do usually preview the result of what I typed as best I can, but not usually the edit summaries. Thanks for pointing that out but I suspect that I cannot go back and re-edit the edit summary...Hopefully the editor affected will not take offence. But golly. Your Nick seems very familiar for some reason and I only just made that edit... are you stalking me?--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at the moment -- I've had the PPACA on my watchlist for quite a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK. That's maybe where user name came to me from then! I see later I also deleted the editor's name from the summary by mistake too. He didn't seem to change the text, he just moved it for some reason by I could not see why. As I recall its all in date order..so moving content seems on the surface to me to be likely to have put things out of the rightful order... --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to rationing article

Hi H, good to see you editing out here again. Take a look at the introduction after your edits; you've got a paragraph hanging in space at the bottom. Further, rationing goes well beyond the new law, which now has a prominent place in the introduction sentence, which does not belong there in my view. The new law should not be mentioned in the first sentence.Farcaster (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will check out the edit but I am quite of the different opinion about when to mention the new law. Was not the law meant to PREVENT rationing based on maintaining insurance company profitability over the needs of the sick? Wasn't switching subsidies from privatized Medicare towards subsidies for those with genuine hardship in the law to ensure that good basic health care was available to all? The new law will radically change the rationing that goes on currently. That is why I think that the new law needs to be mentioned up front to that it is clear that the text relates to rationing as it has been and soon will not be. I am not a huge fan of the new law but it does radically alter the rationing situation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HK, your assertions above explain part of why most Americans continue to disagree with you about ObamaCare. In answer to your rhetorical questions, no, the new law was patently not about those things. If the goals had been to improve the quality and availability of healthcare, the law would have included components with a reasonable chance of achieving those goals, for example increasing the number of medical school slots and offering free medical education like some other countries do; instead, the AMA will continue to restrict the number of slots and accredited schools, so people will be forced to pay more for basically the same number of doctors (who will thus be paid more). (As for what America's hospitals and 1 million doctors spend much of their resources doing, you might want to see this[2].) I do wish you had taken the time to watch the actual Congressional floor debates, or read more about the experience of Massachusetts (where people are paying more to wait longer at increasingly overcrowded emergency rooms) before jumping to a conclusion about the purpose of the law. I took a break from editing, partly out of frustration, but the article link I provided you previously about Senator McConnell's political strategy has proved correct; the Democrats have since suffered the worst midterm election loss of any party in more than 60 years, as ObamaCare failed to become popular, and already many of its provisions seem likely to be defunded by the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the CDC reported more than 12,000 Americans died of H1N1, while more than 70 million doses of vaccine that they had paid for expired unused, because the Administration chose to give the vaccine to provider lobbies to sell rather than to people, and the provider lobbies charged more than the market would bear. This isn't all your fault personally, but if you want to help, please read the actual contents of the law rather than promoters' slogans.TVC 15 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it was patently about those things and it is not properly called Obamacare. And while it will help balance the financials it may not help cut costs overall, though some of the pilot schemes may do so in the longer term. I think we have met here before and I think I know where you sit in regards to the fence. America does not need more doctors... it has plenty of doctors but they are just doing the wrong things because the American reward structure is geared to rewarding specialists and generalists are few in numbers for the same reason. For basic health care its the generalist you need. Marcus Welbys and not House. America did have generalists at one time and home visits but those days are over. Except in Britain. Ask yourself why. It has nothing to do with Obama. The reason why the ERs are full still is explained and it is because specialists earn too much so hardly anyone wants to be on general practice. Prostate Cancer statistics are a goos start for understanding what happens in America. If you check the stats, America has much more "incidence" of prostate cancer that the European countries. But the death rate is much the same. Now that might look good for the medical system. Until you realise that America has very many more Urologists (because it pays better when you bill the insurer). And if the urologist finds a small trace of cancer cells which (because of the nature of that disease is unlikely to be fatal) does he say as a Swedish Doctor would... go home nothing to worry about but come back for a another test in 2 year"? The Swedish doctor is not paid in the same way as the American doctor. He is salaried. He gets paid just to do what is needed. The American doctor if he did the same as the Swedish doctor would be saying goodbye to income if he did that.... so he tells the patient that he found some worrying signs, to put him on hormone medication for 3 months with re-tests at regular intervals and perhaps a spot of radiation treatment here and there and if the worst comes to the worst, prostatectomy. All of which carries risks for the patient, (risks which may not be worth the taking because 9 out of 10 cases where "cancer traces" are found would never be fatal because of the nature of the disease. But by God the American doctor gets well paid for all that intervention. THAT is the cost problem in American Healthcare... the system rewards doing things that add cost and not necessarily those things that are in the patients health or financial health interests. It was interesting to read the book by A J Cronin that was written in the 1930s and influenced the creation of the UK Health Services..... the situation then was that doctors were getting well paid for treating the wealthy but worried well, whereas the really sick poor Joe who did really nasty work and caught really nasty diseases from doing those jobs were often ignored by some doctors and where they were treated they could only get treatment because their doctors wanted to do the maximum benefit for all their patients even if it meant over charging the worried well to finance care for the really sick ones. The NHS eliminated that system OVERNIGHT, so radical solutions can be implemented quickly. I have no idea why Obama thought the American system needed to be prised gently into new ways. I have a solution for American Health Care (not what you may think) which could be implemented almost overnight and I am sure would have everybody agreeing that it was the right thing to do. But I don't think anyone would listen or take it seriously because it is way too simple. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think the problem is everyone except you is ignorant, so you explain the obvious at great length, but then latch onto the wrong "solution," i.e. whatever Obama supports (even though he campaigned against it when it was called Hillary's Plan). That is like a doctor diagnosing influenza and prescribing that the patient should drink a barrel of petroleum daily: the diagnosis may be correct, but the treatment makes matters worse. There are many ways to improve American healthcare, but most people with local experience concluded that ObamaCare was not among them.TVC 15 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are a weird one... I did not even say what my solution would be. yet you say I am latching on to the wrong solution! Wouldn't your idea of "offering free medical education" be rather costly to the taxpayer? The people who complain about "Obamacare" usually accuse the government of spending too much money. My solution would not cost the government a penny, but would leave the medical industry to find the solutions to America's main health care system problems as defined by Americans. With appropriate incentives of course. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As you said previously and again above, you have not offered your solution, whatever it might be. Instead, you have latched onto whatever Obama supports at any given moment. Anyway there is no persuading you of anything, so rather than slide into name-calling (weird vs. arrogant and bombastic, just in time for the holidays), I'll sign off now. You're lucky ObamaCare won't affect you personally, and if Democrats are determined to get themselves voted out of Congress (and probably the White House, if the 2012 results follow current polls), there's no saving people from themselves.TVC 15 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. Happy feasting.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture of fear

i'm around at the article talk page right now if you would like to discuss it. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

see, i'm not opposed to factual additions to the article. maybe you could make a greater effort to keep WP:AGF in mind beforehand next time. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? All I see is that other editors at the article Talk page have also accused you of not acting in the spirit of co-operative editing as per policy and I have seen from your recent edit at Arab nationalism that you have added a quote from a prominent Arab Nationalist from 50+ years back about an incitement to "kill all Jews" without giving the proper context or where the phrase he uses comes from or was probably taken from. He was it must be remembered broadcasting from Germany at a time a time of war when Zionists, no friends of Germany or the Arabs, were seeking to steal Arab lands to build a new jewish homeland on Arab lands. The quote is a paraphrase from the Koran, which his audience would have recognized, which gives Muslims allowance to kill (normally forbidden in the Koranic law) IF they are threatened by non-believers. If I was in a war and some religious sect was seeking to take my land without compensation I might be inclined to take up arms to prevent that from happening. The way you wrote the quote was as though he was just a fanatical jew hater.... My feeling is that your edit is a clear example of engendering a culture of fear by misplaced analysis. Maybe that's why you dislike the article so much? So whilst I normally do Assume Good Faith it does rather depend on the pattern of editing by the editor concerned. Your edits at these two articles lead me to think that AGF is rather difficult in your case. You deleted all reference to Adam Curtis's work which is as as clear a portrayal of the Culture of Fear as any that I have seen presented. Your argument that he does not use he term "culture of fear" matters not one jot. Your reinserted definition of culture of fear as "a term used by some among public discourse to accuse public figures of inciting fear " (which makes no sense, does not agree with the narrative in the article (and you had the cheek to add a citation request for!) was a total giveaway. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr WookieInHeat (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Zionists, no friends of Germany or the Arabs, were seeking to steal Arab lands

Sorry to interrupt, but I fail to see how buying land voluntarily from someone constitues "stealing". Not to mention that Jews had lived in that area for centuries before they were kicked out by other empires and then Syrians, Egyptians, and other Arabic groups migrated there.

Based on your previous comments, I also find it hard to believe that you indeed would "take up arms" if your neighbors sold their home to someone from a social group that you detest (whether mimes, gay people, jews, whatever X group) to prevent those people from living near you.Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from (denial of the Zionist call for the confiscation of Arab lands) and I do not accept your premise. My main accusation stands. The editor concerned had quoted out of context and that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#editor assuming bad fatih regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Culture of fear. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 13:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)