User talk:MastCell/Archive 3
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4|
Moved from User:MastCell
do i need a source for the statemtn "the sun comes up in the morning " ? according to a reliable source, the Lancet article cited in statins, there is NO BENEFIT for many millions of americans who are supposed, according to official guidlines, take statins. if you have a situatin where 30 million people are on drugs for there entire life, at billions of dollars, and the science says there is NO BENEFIT, how would you describe this ?? please, let me know - how would you describe this ? the most straightforward interpretation is that our healthcare system is perverted to the profit motive; I await your analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs).
- The difference between "the sun comes up in the morning" and "our healthcare system is perverted to the profit motive" is obvious, but I'm happy to make it clear. The former is an observable, unarguable fact; the latter is an opinion. Opinions (and for that matter, most facts) require attribution on Wikipedia; I don't recall the Lancet source saying that the healthcare system was perverted. Sure, I think statins may be overprescribed, but I think you're overreading the source and inserting your own opinion and interpretation. Probably best to continue discussion on the relevant article talk pages. MastCell 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you have a highly reputable source saying that millions of people are being treated for decades with unneccessary drugs, at a huge profit to the manufacturer, - you do agree that is what the article says ? - I agree that why this is occuring needs a seperate citation, not provided in the lancet article. Perhpas a seperate article along the lines of "profit motive in health care". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs).
Ombudsman's autism epidemic
Thanks. Nasty piece of work. Midgley 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure... I think using AfD as a forum to badmouth another editor, who's not even participating, is wrong. MastCell 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing the right thing. Just to be sure, you are aware this article was already nominated before but unfortunately survived? Did not want to nominate myself since I started it last time. Cheers! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that AfD. I think the idea was interesting (keep as a prominent health fraud), but in hindsight it was probably predictable that a POV warrior like User:Heelop would show up to bowdlerize the page. It's not even a notable health fraud, really - and thankfully WP:FRINGE exists to establish notability criteria, which the article/topic clearly fails. MastCell 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Already added my 2 cents, guess! Anyway, have no objection to it per se, if it is possible to keep it as it is now, clearly stating it is nonsense. However history shows us that editors quickly forget and that's when the less scrupulous appear and rewrite it to become an advertisement. So, all 'n all, good nom! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the previous AfD closed with "let's keep the article to warn people it's a scam". That sounds good in theory, but the problem is that the article falls off the radar screen - and then a single-purpose account shows up to whitewash it into a promotional article. Next the article is scraped onto Answers.com and such places, and instead of a scam warning, it becomes an advertisement. The article needs to go, for that reason and for notability. MastCell 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks... not sure I accomplished much. I can only take on a few medical controversies at a time without getting exhausted. I did think it was important to set the record straight about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons... seems kinda sneaky to use a generic, respectable-sounding title like that for what is essentially a
right-wing/libertarian version of Pravdajournal of political commentary. But that's just my opinion. MastCell 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, I was completely unaware that the journal was more editorialistic in nature than academic beforehand. It sort of calls into question the anon's defense of the JPandS on my user talk page — at one point referring to my "strongly held views", when, in fact, I'd never lodged an opinion on anything related to the matter. And, certainly, when an anonymous editor turns up with an apparently in situ knowledge of what AN/I is, it sets of the alarm bells. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I feel like recently I've run across quite a few folks determined to propound minoritarian views on vaccines, autism, AIDS, ephedra, the FDA, you name it. Not that these things shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but WP:NPOV does suggest that ideas should be represented in proportion to their representation in the expert literature/scientific community, which I find to be an impossibly idealistic goal. It's tough to stay engaged with 3 or 4 single-purpose accounts at once; I feel much more productive improving non-controversial articles. I'm sure you experience something similar on the abortion pages. MastCell 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of activity from single-issue accounts on the abortion-related articles recently. A lot of the time, it feels like I'm trying to take on an entire army with only a few fellows-in-arms, or that I'm even jumping into the fray single-handedly. I've worked successfully with editors of various perspectives, but, it's the ones who cannot leave their personal perspective at the door and are determined to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting their own worldview that present the greatest problems. Editors like this often get let of the hook under AGF long after it's become apparent that their apparent lack of concern for NPOV, POINT, V, NOT, etc. is not attributable to their unfamiliarity with these policies. -Severa (!!!) 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd alert you to this edit recently made to Vaccine controversy. The fact that the editor has only one contribution is likely a point of interest. -Severa (!!!) 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh. Actually, I think that revised description is fine, but I'm always a little wary about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons - I find it's cited on Wikipedia way out of proportion to its scientific relevance (which is essentially zero). I mean, it may as well be titled Annals of the John Birch Society. That anon was recently arguing that the Cochrane Library and JPandS were essentially equivalent sources in terms of scientific weight... MastCell 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree; but the edit wasn't too bad, and I figured I'd assume the best. Time will tell. MastCell 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Action on completed checkuser case
Hm, that's a tricky one. To be honest, not sure what should be done about it. =\ In the past, it's been suggested that people in those situations should be treated as the same user, for 3RR's purposes -- don't know how much community consensus is behind the idea, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read Template:Unreferenced, where it says that "most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Your edits to that article have a somwwhat tendentious pattern to them and are not recognizably, in my humble opinion, aimed at improving it. Is it just me or may I ask why? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did read Template:Unreferenced; the part of the quote you left out states "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template." I've generally seen it at the top of articles, and never in the references section. Interestingly, I note that on your user page, you state explicitly that you prefer placing the tag at the top of the page, to "productively annoy" people into adding sources. Me too. I just don't get it - why do you think, in this instance, it should be at the bottom if you generally put it at the top?
- As far as my edits, could you be so kind as to be more specific? You're welcome to disagree, but "tendentious"? From where I'm sitting, you're making a fuss over the template placement when "there is no consensus" and your own userpage suggests you usually put it at the top, and you're characterizing my edits as being tendentious and unconstructive. That's an awful lot of bad faith to assume in one sitting; am I missing something? MastCell Talk 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That text on my user page is old, thanks for reminding me to revise it. I changed my opinion a while ago after I read Template:Unreferenced and especially after I realized that there is a tendency of people to tag articles with the intent of downgrading their appearance and appeal to readers (one may call it "sly POV editing").
- "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Here's the full quotation from Template:Unreferenced. Which part is more important now? I'm not implying that you broke policy (as in "there is consensus" and you didn't follow it), I'm just quoting the relevant part of that sentence, as I perceive it. Arguably tendentious is to make the tag more visible again, directly after I put it where most suggest it belongs. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Why don't you update your userpage then, leave the template wherever you currently prefer, and try a little harder to assume good faith. I'll do the same. If you're truly interested in the quality of the sourcing in the AIDS conspiracy theories article, your help in finding sources for the unattributed claims would be useful. MastCell Talk 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll update my user page today, promise. And I'll look into getting sources whenever I get around to it. But please WP:AAGF. I just looked at your most recent contribs and, well, you didn't exactly format the citations, did you? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Sorry to make a mountain out of a molehill here; it's been a long day. I didn't mean to give you a hard time - I was genuinely a little confused by the userpage, but now it makes sense. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this right -- it's more believable to you that some dissident somewhere got the idea to FAKE Margulis's review and blog postings... together with the complicity of a mainstream biology professor who personally verified that she did post her views herself... essentially, that her announcement re: her AIDS views are some kind of HOAX?? (as if, she wouldn't immediately announce it as a hoax to the eternal embarrasment of dissidents!) THAT is easier for you to believe than the simple explanation that she is an AIDS dissident??
You are beyond hopeless...
184.108.40.206 13:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify my position... while it may be a debatable point whether an Amazon review or a blog thread is a "reliable source" to use at Wikipedia (I personally think it is given a supporting piece of evidence, e.g. CALLING THE PERSON HERSELF OR THE OWNER OF THE BLOG PERSONALLY), you are completely, 100% wrong if you think she is actually NOT a dissident or that the review and blog postings attributed to her are not 100% hers:
[Refactored cut-and-paste from blog]
Furthermore, I know form personal communication with Harvey Bialy that Lynn Margulis did communicate to him personally her positive review of the book. So, while the question of what's a "reliable source" may be some issue, I just want you to know if happen to have any doubts, that you ARE 100% completely factually wrong if you claim (a) her statements and viewpoints attributed to her are not hers, and (b) she is not a dissident. Unless you really believe that a mainstream biology professor is (without any motivation) committing some kind of hoax, or is himself being impersonated by someone. That's what I was referring to when I said you were "beyond hopeless". 220.127.116.11 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You've been around on Wikipedia longer than I (under your previous guise), long enough to know that the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I don't have any reason to suspect the posts are a hoax, but just because you or I are convinced that something to be true doesn't mean we can insert it at will on Wikipedia. It needs to be attributable to a reliable source - and Amazon.com reviews and comments at a blog are not reliable sources. Neither is "I called the blog owner". Attribution to a reliable source is especially important for controversial information about living people. Sorry. MastCell Talk 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Barrett article
Being a new editor, would you be so kind to go to my talk page and try to explain your reasoning about the conversations going on there? I am just curious. Thanks, --Crohnie 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, MastCell. I came back from vacation, only to promptly come down with a cold, so haven't been 'round Wiki much. Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. My advice toward editing articles on disputed subjects is to pick one subject and stick with it. In my experience, cross-editing articles on several controversial topics at once is a difficult act to balance — it can be like biting off more than you can chew. But, if you're up to the task, feel free to give it a try. Articles relating to things like the evolution-creation debate, abortion, LGBT studies, etc. usually have regular editors who monitor them and keep things in check, but I'm not sure if the same can be said for vaccine-related articles. There's Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics, but it's been neglected for a year. Should there be a WikiProject Vaccination or WikiProject Immunology? Or is that getting ahead of things? -Severa (!!!) 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the Vaccine noticeboard was set up by User:Ombudsman. -Severa (!!!) 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. I'm having a little difficulty with our friend at Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Seems like there's been an increase in the amount of nonsense recently, or maybe it's just that my watchlist is growing. Anyhoo, I've been diverting myself by working on the cholangiocarcinoma article, which was quite stubby when I found it. It's come a long way, and I recently put it up for featured-article status - you should take a look; I'd be happy to hear any suggestions or feedback you have. And so far it's been controversy-free - no one's showed up to claim that cholangiocarcinoma doesn't exist, or that it's caused by the MMR vaccine, or that FDA is sitting on drugs that could cure it, or that the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing cheap, natural treatments for it... man, it's been a long couple of weeks. MastCell Talk 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- My advice regarding the AAPS talk page would be to address any salient points when they first arise, but don't feel obligated to reply to the same argument again and again and again if the discussion takes a turn for the circular, and feel free not to reply to posts obviously intended solely to "fish" for a certain reaction (WP:DNFT). Be polite, but don't take the bait, is my policy.
- I feel I've just been bumping my head against a wall lately with the abortion-related articles, particularly regarding categorization. Both myself and another user have put forward several compromise propsosals, but not one has been to the satisfaction of the third party.
- I'll give the cholangiocarcinoma article a read-through. :-) -Severa (!!!) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)