Jump to content

User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Nov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive

Oh, my. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia after all that time I put in reviewing the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article content this makes me very sad, thanks(???) for pointing me to it. Zad68 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. I just had an unfortunate tour through the train wreck that is the rest of our ADHD content, after I encountered a COI editor adding his/her own research unnecessarily to multiple articles. Gosh it's a wreck out there. I continue to believe that no content is better than bad content in the medical realm, as we have an entire walled garden of articles that allow POV and COI editors to promote their pet theories. We had the same in the entire suite of autism-related articles until Eubulides cleaned them up in 2008 and 9, but keeping those clean has been a constant maintenance chore. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Amen sister. I was having this conversation with someone else the other day, there are just certain articles or areas that do not weather well on Wikipedia. An article is either FA/GA, or it's actively being brought there, or it's as good as garbage. I'd rather have medical articles carry no content than bad content, and per WP:MEDRS you can make a case for that. This is one of my "rules of content": the best defense against bad content is good content, and in fact it's probably the only defense. Once an article is FA/GA, it's easier to maintain. If an article is in a particularly controversial area, the overall effort to keep it maintained is substantially higher. I now understand why we have so many FAs on obscure mushroom species--once it's FA, nobody will ever edit it again. Zad68 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I struggle not to be green with envy over editors who work in content areas where they can churn out cookie-cutter articles that never get touched again once they clear FAC, while I/we come here just wanting to write new content, but spend hours, days, weeks just trying to keep a couple of medical FAs clean. It sometimes seems insurmountable, and then I see articles that have been essentially untouched since passing FA/GA ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Amphetamine

I'm still hellbent on promoting amphetamine to FA. You still haven't given me your advice/opinion on potential article improvements for FA though Zad. Seppi333 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Seppi333 you're right, I owe you... I want to help, plan on doing so. Zad68 14:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I clicked on it ... that hatnote at the top is all wrong. Link to dab pages, the rest belong in hatnotes at the top of sections or linked within the article. Also, solid prose review at WP:FAC is no longer the norm, but you've got an awful lot of however, moreover, therefore etc going on, which can be a tipoff to pedestrian prose (have a look at the links about the overuse of however at the top of my userpage-- most of the time when you use those words they are unnecessary and redundant). Also, the lead should be digestible to the average reader, who is typically a layperson ... there's an awful lot of terminology in your lead that will require a layperson to click out to know what you're talking about.

Now, to a much bigger concern. Since you have outright inaccurate, poorly sourced, outdated, and WRONG information about the use of psychostimulants in the presence of tics or Tourette syndrome, I am concerned about the integrity of the article and its sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Sandy! I'll make the changes asap. Can you elaborate on your tics/tourette's point though? I really have no clue what's wrong with it. I know it was originally sourced from the 2013 adderall Rx info though. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry for being snappy, but that tic/Ritalin issue is such a biggie that I was quite disappointed to see it parroted in our drug article, when that info is well and solidly debunked. I can't point you to the best sources for this, because I don't have journal access, but what I can do is summarize it for you in my own words, and tell you where to start looking for sources. Basically, the whole notion that stimulants increased tics was part of and furthered by the whole Scientology anti-psychiatry BS. It has since been amply demonstrated in numerous well-controlled studies that stimulants do not increase tics, but the warning still stands in the (older and FDA) drug literature, even though it's outdated and thoroughly disproven. This matter is even mentioned in the full version of DSM5, and you can find some of the studies at Treatment of Tourette syndrome (which is a bit outdated now-- there are much better and newer reviews that say the same thing, and I've even encountered reviews that mention the Scientology conspiracy factor, but re-locating them for you would be a challenge). Go to the Tourette syndrome article and look in External links for a blog by Roger Freeman ... he once mentioned (during the Scientology BS) that US physicians might be afraid of being sued by them, but he wasn't (he's Canadian), and he was happy to speak the truth. But you can now find same in DSM5 and in newer reviews-- but back in the late 90s, he was the only one speaking up. Don't use old literature to source that text-- it needs to be updated, and if you can find the sources, you can even cover the controversy (which should be covered in the ADHD controversy article, but is not). To do this right, you are going to need journal access, so I can't be of much help ... I only have the TS reviews which all cover this issue, but you will have to cover it from the drug sources, because you will have to find the secondary reviews that explain how that faulty text came to be in the drug literature. I've seen it numerous times, I know it exists in reviews, but it will be hard to impossible for me to relocate, since I don't have journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Separately, I just took a tour through GA attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to make sure we don't have that outdated info there. I fixed a few minor things, found that ADHD needs to be updated for DSM5, and that tic comorbidity is not even mentioned, which doesn't set the stage well for the fact that MANY people still believe the outdated treatment info about stimulants causing tics. ADHD is the most common comorbid in TS, but I don't know the inverse, that is, the comorbidity rates for tics in ADHD; someone might locate and add that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy to help support adding that Sandy Zad68 16:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm a PhD student at a state research university, so I have access to numerous journals/databases. I don't know much about tourette's or how it relates to tics, but I'm fairly certain that dopaminergic stimulants do have the potential to exacerbate/induce (just) stereotyped movements (technically, stereotypy, but I suppose it could be called a motor tic). I'll see what I can find on tourettes/tics and stims with a lit search though. Seppi333 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Re exacerbations in tics or stereotypies, nope :) (By the way, the aforementioned Freeman blog was one of the earliest good descriptions of how to distinguish tics from stereotypies-- before there was anything else in print-- now there is lots of good info, including the new DSM5.) I just re-read my copy of the relevant pages of the DSM5, and do not find the reasoning explained there (so I saw it one of my many journal articles, which I would have to go through to relocate), but the substance-induced business that was previously in the DSM now mentions cocaine as the example. There is, as far as I know, no recent secondary review on tics and stimulants that does not debunk the older notion that stimulants exacerbated tics, and this is important, because kids are not getting treated for ADHD (which is more impairing than tics) because of faulty info that has endured thanks to Scientology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


(Outdent) Eh, I don't really want to argue it, but if you ask any long-term (lets say, 10+ years) amphetamine user, I'd wager they'd tell you some combination of bruxism, motor tics/stereotypic movements, and/or psychomotor agitation are the most frequent, bothersome/noticeable, or annoying side effects they experience while using the drug. I don't know how to explain side effects that present like those in one long-term user if they aren't those related medical phenomena.Seppi333 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is a different issue than the ole refrain from prescribing stimulants because of the fear (spread by Scientology) that they will lead to Tourette's or tics. I will try to send sources your way as I re-read through my files, but no promises on how quickly I can do that (my tips above will point you to some sources, but there are better and newer ones available). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
After a fairly thorough (but not exhaustive) search with MEDRS filters for tics & ADHD stims, this is what I found before I got tired of looking. PMID 21491404 PMID 19625978. Amphetamine seems to be the only ADHD drug that may exacerbate them. That's not that surprising though, since it's the only ADHD drug that effluxes dopamine (in addition to inhibiting the transporter) in the nigrostriatal pathway. Seppi333 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the starting places I gave you above, from the recent papers on my desk right now, here is some of what I have (I have more):
  • PMID 23224240 (2013) "Finally, the use of stimulant medication as an example of a substance-induced movement disorder has been consistently removed from ‘‘Chronic Tic Disorders’’, ‘‘Provisional Tic Disorders’’ and ‘‘Tourette’s Disorder’’, due to lack of evidence."
  • PMID 21386676 (2011, I don't have an online copy of this, only hard copy, so pardon typos as I pound this out): "Psychostimulants, although generally considered the fastest acting and most effective treatment for AHD in isolation, are often not prescribed in individuals with Tourette syndrome because of an FDA warning listing tics or a family history of Tourette syndrome as a contraindication. This was based on a series of case reports published in the 1980s and 1990s highlighting the emergence or exacerbation of tics with psychostimulant use. However, a recent meta-analysis of four trials involving 193 children with ADHD and tics found methyphenidate was effective in reducing ADHD symptoms (effect size=0.8) and had neutral-to-beneficial effects on tic symptoms (effect size=0.3)"
  • PMID 21378617 (2011): " ... the use of stimulants does not necessarily increase tics significantly or from a clinical point of view and may be used judiciously in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in youngsters with Tourette syndrome. Both the short-acting form (e.g. Ritalin) and the long-acting or sustained release forms (e.g. Concerta, Equasym, Medikinet XL) of methylphenidate are used.
  • PMID 22064610 (2011, typos mine): "As previously mentioned (my note-- this is mentioned in every TS review article), psychiatric comorbidities often pose a bigger problem than tics for people with Tourette syndrome. The stimulant drug methylphenidate ... (list of others) ... can improve ADHD in people with Tourette syndrome. Initial concerns that stimulant drugs could worsen tics and other features of Tourette syndrome have been refuted by the results of further studies.
Also, Roger Freeman was blogging about the Scientology issue, and the distinction between tics and stims, years before there were journal articles period much less reviews ... good read:
I'll stop there-- I've got dozens more of same. This has been established now for TS treatment for at least ten years, and is covered in any recent review article on TS and associated comorbidities. Significantly, when ADHD is present along with TS, it accounts for basically the entire neuropsychological profile and difficulties, hence the importance of knowing how to treat the ADHD in the presence of tics. If you need even more sources, pls let me know, cuz I've got scores of same.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Harm OCD

But I'm really here to ask Zad if he can contribute his expertise to an AFD at Harm OCD, since I suck at AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do, I have to run out for a bit but will be on later. Zad68 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated! The article links one commercial source, and I found one or two similar non-reliable mentions in my search, but nothing that indicates we should have an article. But you are better at that stuff than I am, and I am dismal at AFD. A problem is that the word "harm" often comes up on OCD searches, but not "harm OCD", so that has to be teased out. I think that new editor wants to cover territory that is already covered at intrusive thoughts. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's see if the PROD works first. No sense in working harder than we have to. If the tag gets removed we'll move to Plan B. Zad68 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Also Plan A.5 (before Plan B) might be a redirect. Did the editor just split that content out to a new article because they felt it needed to be removed from the main article but didn't have the heart just to delete it? If so then the PROD should work. We'll find out I guess. Zad68 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. First I put a speedy delete, which was apparently the wrong thing to do, and I wasn't sure if prod was the right thing to do. And then I considered redirect to OCD, but a) wasn't sure if we should redirect something that isn't notable, and b) wasn't sure if we would redirect to OCD or Intrusive thoughts. And I still don't know! I seriously Do Not Do AFD ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not speedy-able. The criteria for speedy are pretty narrow. Unless it's obvious nonsense/vandalism/unintelligible, a BLP attack, or is a person/group of people or music with no indication of importance, it's not speedy-able (ignoring a tiny few other technical things). I think we have good chances with PROD. I'll watch and shepherd. Zad68 20:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, ImADork. Well, if you will shepherd, I will stay out, so no COI. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Progress, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a good direction. Zad68 03:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that researchers trying to push their own theories into Wikipedia take up a huge amount of our time? Another one at pathodysmorphia, non-notable, COI researcher pushing her own new theory into multiple articles, took a good part of my day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter Huttenlocher

Could you please have a look at Peter Huttenlocher? I've cobbled it together from a few obituaries, but know nothing of what he actually did, so those parts have been poorly glossed. There are some very good sources there, especially the Nature one, so adding something should be straightforward enough. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 00:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jamesx12345, I'm honored you thought to ask me. I'll take a look! Appreciate it... Zad68 03:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

The page's watchers won't let me eliminate primary sources or add more recent primary sources relating to school outcomes ( no secondary sources cited in this section). Please comment. Thanks! jj (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your skilled use of the flame-thrower and the mop, and for finding time to still perform the valuable non-admin assistance you've been known for. Glad to have you on the team. – Quadell (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Quadell! So far my brief time with the mop has definitely been challenging and rewarding... sometimes more one than the other :-/ Zad68 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Commas

Not trying to cause problems, just a serious question. WP:MOSNUM says "may" or "may not". Why if I chose "may not", is that wrong? It just appears odd to me to have 6000 BC and 6,000 years in the same article. To be completely honest, this seems like a poke in the eye. My original edit was to make the comma use consistent, but my error was to change the dates instead of the numbers. I am now completely confused given that there appears to be no rime nor reason in the application of any guideline on this article. Is that why I found myself to have fallen down the rabbit hole? That is an actual honest question. Maybe "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" after all? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

VMS Mosaic, no problem, that's a reasonable question. The answer is: they should be inconsistent, intentionally, for clarity. It's easy to confuse "6000 years ago" with "6000 BC". In academic writing, a four-digit year isn't written with a comma, but a number used as a value in a date calculation (or other value use, as opposed to a nominal use) is written with a comma. So, "6,000 years ago" for clarity, to emphasize that the 6,000 isn't naming a year but is a value used in a calculation applied to the current year. Zad68 13:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, given that it is very jarring to the eye (but maybe that is just me given that the reason I do what I do here is that even the smallest detail out of place jumps out at me), I see your point. But to expect an editor to know something which is not in the MOS is a little problematic. I'm going to guess that getting the MOS to reflect this is a battle not worth fighting. You might not believe it, but I've turned tail and ran from many more potential fights, than the fights I've been in. I've actually waited several years on certain articles for some other editor(s) to come along to make the spelling almost consistent so that I could go in to finish the job without starting a fight. Yes, all you have to do is wait and someone will eventually change the spelling. It's just that when I get attacked first, I don't take it well.
In any case, someone really should consider fixing the mixed spelling in salt. Having a huge blow up over the spelling, then leaving it mixed after ward, strikes me as very odd. It tells me that this was a power struggle more than anything, so from the very beginning someone like me never had a chance, right or wrong. Well, time to get back to work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
VMS Mosaic, someone will fix, hopefully Cwmhiraeth will come back to the article, I think she'd be a better choice as she has a native's grasp of British English. On another note, for your own general understanding of what goes in to the evaluation of a GA candidate, you should read both Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Zad68 13:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
You know, it would have been better if I hadn't read the "are not" article because now my head hurts. Section one couldn't be more clear that the spelling should not have been changed based on the GA editor's own preference (I was told the exact opposite during the dispute). Even if I was wrongly "Demanding compliance with your(my) favorite MoS pages", I was still right. So please don't suggest I read anything else which is only going to raise my already too high blood pressure. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
My notifications informed me that my name had been mentioned here. I have removed the article "Salt" from my watchlist because I did no want to be involved in ongoing discussion on the talk page, seeing my role in Wikipedia more as a content creator and article improver. My punctuation is not perfect and I don't mind others changing it where I have got it wrong or been inconsistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry this whole mess happened. Like you, all I ever wanted was to be left alone to do what I do which is mainly spelling, typos, punctuation and vandalism. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I could write a lengthy response here, I think I'll just agree with two things VMS said: I am sorry this whole mess happened, and it's time to put this behind us. Zad68 03:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom drove off another

Now Tom Hulse has caused Chiswick Chap to unwatch the page, that's two now. Now I totally understand those internet blogs I've read about wikipedia being dysfunctional and its editor base massively declining for several years. See my posting there made just now. HalfGig talk 12:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Will look... Looking at the larger picture there's no consensus to move. I fully appreciate the frustration at this sort of thing, believe me! Wikipedia's open editing model has strengths and weaknesses, it's easy to view the attempts at attrition of established content as a weakness. Zad68 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Chiswick Chap might look again after a few news cycle changes. I too get very frustrated when someone's claiming some kind of "victory" while not making sense, and using arguments that remind me of those used by the self-proclaimed sovereign citizens. How does one engage with someone who seems to be playing some kind of game? It feels like trolling and/or a pissing contest, and not much to do with article improvement.
Viewing past incidents on WP has shown me that making comments like this could have severe consequences, so this is the only time I'll be making them. Hamamelis (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Redback spider

Hi. The Redback spider articled is at FAC. It includes medical aspects of the spider bite. I recall your editing of the "Salt" article and I think a similar sort of analysis is needed in the "Bites to humans" section in the spider article. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Snowmanradio, my time has been a bit more limited than usual lately but I'll try to get to it. Zad68 03:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that we are getting it done, so may be preferable to reserve your editing time for an Wiki article that has a higher priority. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Hey Zad68! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

  • Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
  • Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Hey Zad68! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

  • Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
  • Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

International Coalition for Genital Integrity

I don't want to interfere with your attempts to assist User:DavidHGrateful, but with respect to the article, I would delete it as G12 rather than leave it in its present state.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 actually I did exactly that as my original action... but then undid my action because I'm so involved in this content area, so I tagged it with the copyvio instead. But, if you agree that it's a G12, please fire away. Zad68 16:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that but you immediately restored it, and I didn't want to step on your toes. I've deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. B! (Or Ms.) I had wanted to just tag it as G12. I used Twinkle to do that like I've always done before. But I forgot I was an admin and that when I use Twinkle to tag a CSD, it'll actually finish the job! So I undid and used the copyvio template instead. Thanks for the outside assistance. Zad68 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I wish I could forget I'm an admin sometimes, Zach. Enjoy it while it lasts. (I'm male.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit, the nicest thing about giving up the admin tools has been not having to remember to check that "tag only, don't delete" box in Twinkle for CSDs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Writ Keeper darnit now that you mention it, I'm looking back over that fence I just climbed over and I do have to say that, standing over here, that grass does look more green that I gave it credit for. Zad68 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Now, now, Zach, just because Writ Keeper was stupid smart stupid whatever enough to temporarily resign doesn't mean you should entertain any such notion. A good admin is hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Hi. I tried to answer you on my talkpage and I would be very interested in further feedback from you. Also, could I ask for feedback on this draft RfC? After looking around at examples myself I see it is rather complex, but I also see no escape from that given the situation on the talkpage where the two arguments which constantly reappear are that everything has been argued before already and there is no point discussing it unless there is an RfC first. I can see that a simplistic RfC will achieve exactly what has happened in the past: nothing. The problem will then be how to apply the decisions, just as we currently have general agreement to following policies and reliable sources, but a strong feeling by some editors that the "local consensus" are not doing so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster yes I do intend to review and reply, but I have to say, it looks like every discussion everywhere regarding this topic ends up like a firehose of words, and I am having a tough time keeping up with all the things people keep typing. I have a lot of sympathy for editors who feel like they're spending a lot of their editing time going in circles and I really do want to help resolve some of the open ID items so that editors can move on to working on other things. I will do my best but I also have other things I want to work on... Zad68 15:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Great! The talk page is currently quiet, waiting to see if there will be an RfC. My RfC draft is currently a mess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Will get back into it as soon as time allows, maybe later this weekend. The general messiness of the ID discussions is something I think needs help... If everyone would limit themselves to no more than 1000 characters in any reply, and refused to repeat themselves, discussions would be more efficient and have a better chance of closing... hey I can dream! Zad68 21:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Child's Right to Genital Integrity/Autonomy Movement

Hi Zach,

Thank-you for your kind welcome and introducing me Wikipedia's guidelines. You are right, I have chosen a contentious subject. It is a subject that deserves to be represented neutrally on this cultural interface.

I would like to develop a page here to describe the subject above. Do you have any advice for me?

DavidHGrateful (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I do want to help out with that, will provide a reply. Zad68 14:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
David here's a more complete reply: Right now Wikipedia's coverage of that subject is at Circumcision controversies#Genital integrity. I see you have commented on the Talk page there, suggesting Genital integrity be developed further as a separate page. I think that's not a bad idea providing you can identify sufficient sourcing to develop the content to the point where a separate article is warranted. Wikipedia articles are often related to each other in a parent-child relationship, where the parent article is the broad overview containing summaries of many subtopics and the child article focuses on the detail of one specific topic. The parent is linked to the child with the {{main}} template, see WP:SUMMARY for an explanation of the summary-style article.

However, I think you're going to run into two issues. First is the sourcing. The kind of sourcing required to develop a new article needs to: 1) Be independent of the subject; 2) Be secondary sourcing; and 3) Provide significant coverage of the subject. I looked at your sandbox and almost none of what you have there will be satisfactory for developing a new Wikipedia article. What's there now is almost entirely a laundry list of stuff produced by advocacy organization, those directly involved in the subject--they are not independent of it. As such they are primary and not secondary sourcing for the subject. Per Wikipedia policy you can't build an article on that kind of sourcing. What is ideally needed is something like sources from an academic like a sociologist at a university, or an impartial overview of the topic published by a qualified writer published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The only thing I saw in the list of links in your sandbox that might be useful is stuff by William M O'Barr.

The second issue is your perspective on the topic. It appears you may be very comfortable with conducting a campaign of advocacy outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. Advocacy is covered here--described neutrally without taking sides--but advocacy may not be conducted here. If you are really interested in developing Wikipedia encyclopedia articles in line with Wikipedia content policies, you might consider developing your Wikipedia skills in some area you are not so passionate about first, so that you can learn what is expected. If you are here to continue an advocacy campaign... as you've been pointed to several times now, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Zad68 04:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. When are primary sources used? And, for secondary sources, news articles seem more appropriate to my proposed topic than articles in scientific journals. I have several of those, and have noticed many more. Additionally, I am curious about how to best reference internet video content such as Youtube.
You have told a couple of times now what Wikipedia is not for. Please, tell me in your opinion, what it is for. I think it is for educating the public in the most objective way possible as a reference. Now that I have started participating, I think it also about a community of people that care about educating the public and themselves. There also seem to be some control freaks here too.
Currently, it is evident to me that Wikipedia is not presenting a balanced perspective of the Child's right's movement. For instance, FGM vs MC, terminology aside, the first link on the FGM wikipage links to an advocacy website (primary source) that isn't even active. Why are you not holding that page to the same standards that you are trying to hold me to?
True, it is something I am care deeply about because of personal experience. I bring an essential perspective to the discussion. Also, why would anyone care to contribute to anything that they don't care about and have no personal opinion on? Do you claim yourself to be entirely objective? DavidHGrateful (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for your reply on my talk page:Hi David, unfortunately, both of the problems I mentioned to you in our discussion on my User Talk that I thought might arise in your development of this sandbox are happening. Both the sourcing and the presentation of what's here in this sandbox would be entirely unacceptable for use in Wikipedia articles, and the development of it is moving further in the wrong direction. This is Wikipedia, it's not Intactipedia. I'm not sure what else to tell you besides what I've already pointed out to you earlier, and what you've also heard from experienced editors like Orangemike, JamesBWatson, Bbb23 and others. At this point it's up to you to show you're willing to do article development that will conform to Wikipedia content guidelines. Zad68 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Please address the questions that I raised above.DavidHGrateful (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Violation of editing policy

Please note that I think your edit here was a clear violation of our WP:Editing policy. Please do not ignore wp:preserve. If we ignore our editing policy, we only do so at our own peril. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't agree, where does that source talk about electronic cigarettes? Zad68 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ummmm...... what are you talking about? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The policy says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." I do not see an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The issue was that Zad removed something that should have been preserved. There is such a thing as a background section, if nothing else. There is no reason to remove material solely because the subject isn't mentioned. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are however concerns of WP:OR and WP:DUE when we start using refs that do not discuss the subject to discuss the subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think those concerns hold water. I'd say they're vague and unsubstantiated, because in my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a background section. In fact, I think more Wikipedia articles need them. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where you have a case here, Bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We still base what we do on consensus. Our guidelines do not mention a "background" section at WP:MEDMOS. As we have internal links we simply link to content that is relevant as discussed by secondary sources. Otherwise we end up with editors individually determining what they consider is relevant (and trying to put it first in an article) rather than letting secondary sources lead what we contain. This will end up causing undue weight issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with Background sections in general, but unless the material is directly relevant or well-sourced as "background", there is a risk of editorially constructing a narrative ... which would be OR of course. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

After getting off to a rather hyperbolic start this conversation turned interesting, glad to see that. My view is in line with the others, in particular Alex's, it's far too easy for an editor to take content covering a particular angle and add it to an article as "background", there's a good risk of running into WP:OR issues with that. The presence of something in an article is a message to the reader that it is somehow connected and relevant. Zad68 04:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello

About your comments at Arbitration Enforcement,

You state, "If the reliable sources present View X as fringe, but overwhelmingly support View Y, then an editor who cuts back on or removes View X from articles (per WP:FRINGE) is complying with WP:NPOV." I agree with you on this, the reason I have brought Gilabrand to AE is because she cuts out Y and replaces it with X. Her edits are fine on articles about Israeli fashion and such, but her edits related to Israeli conflicts and Palestine are made to further the Israeli view at the cost of the mainstream view.

As I stated to Quadell, there are editors who only add content for one side, such as user:Jalapenos do exist who only writes about Palestinian attacks on Israelis and never the other way around, but I do not seek their removal from the topic as they do expand the encylopedia with fairly neutrally written content. Gilabrand however is her to make fairly neutal content and slant it to be pro-Israeli. She cuts out criticism of pro-Israel groups[2] and people[3], she cuts out the word Palestine[4], Palestinian[5], and State of Palestine[6], she changes Israeli occupied(international community view) to disputed(Israeli view) [7], Israeli settlement (international community view) to Israeli neighbourhood (Israeli view) [8], cuts out information about a massacre commited by Israelis [9], cuts out the reason a village was depopulated was because the Israeli military had attacked it.[10], she makes "villagers...in a field 300 metres inside Jordan" (what the source calls them) into " infiltrators in a field near the armistice line" at al-Walaja.

I ask that you do review the case, ignoring what other admins have stated as you do so.

P.S., the result of banning most IP regulars from IP articles would be handing the articles to banned sockpuppets. Sepsis II (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis II, happy to agree on the NPOV point, and I agree with you on "the result of banning most IP regulars from IP articles would be handing the articles to banned sockpuppets" -- that was in my comment but I didn't put as sharp a point on it as you did! My comment was really responding to the other admins in the Result concerning... section. I hope to dig into the edits, but might not have the time over the next few days. This area seems to be a never-ending source of AE requests so even if I don't have time to dig into this one, there will surely be another... Zad68 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

I made some edits that you should agree with. If you could keep an eye on it and preserve it, that's be good. jj (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2013_Nov&oldid=1168310028"