User:Fanra/notebook1

Glenn Beck notes
According to Beck, Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a letter of recommendation that was "responsible for my being accepted at Yale." His official biography says at age 30 he spent a semester at Yale studying philosophy and theology, but he admitted he only completed one introductory course.

Glenn Beck claims that the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer, "...actually cause[s] more greenhouse gases...". The treaty bans the use of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), chemicals that destroy the ozone layer. He uses the treaty as an example to claim that if you take action to fight global warming, "...that you just might end up making [it] worse".

"Let me say that again: the most effective treaty ever signed has done MORE HARM THAN GOOD!", he claims. However, the link he provides on his web site to substantiate this claim, actually says no such thing. According to the Washington Post article he links, the treaty has resulted in the use of HCFCs and HFCs to replace the banned CFCs. Beck's claim that the use of HCFCs and HFCs instead of CFCs is causing more global warming is false. CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs all are greenhouse gases, thus, substituting one gas for another does not cause more damage but a similar amount.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Montreal Protocol, "...has reduced the risk of further ozone depletion. Now, with continued compliance, we expect recovery of the ozone layer by the late 21st century."

South Dakota Native Americans
On his April 4, 2006 radio show, Beck reported that Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, had announced she was planning to open an abortion clinic on tribal lands, since South Dakota had just passed a law banning the procedure.

Fire Thunder had said she wanted to open a family planning clinic that would perform abortions as well as provide contraceptive help and education. She was especially concerned about the impact making abortion illegal would have on poor women, "Women of color and poor women have always known that regardless of what happens, women with money will have access to abortion. Women with money will have access to contraception. No matter which way you cut it, it's always on the backs of poor women."

Mentioning that Fire Thunder had proposed opening abortion clinics on Native land, Beck said, "Otherwise, the Indians will have found something that can be more profitable than casinos, and that's abortion clinics. And then, look out, man -- exploiting everything illegal for profit. That's what -- I mean, is that what the Indians have turned into?"

Torture
I've found a transcript of his opinion on torture. However, if I put in in this article, I'm sure to get some response from people here. So, I'm going to put it here first and see what people say. "On Beck's October 6, 2005 radio show, he interviewed a caller who claimed to have been an American intelligence officer. After the man described the methods used to extract information, Beck said the following, 'Mitch, I've got to tell you I appreciate your service. I don't know your circumstances at all. I, you know, I have to assume that, because we wear the white hats that we're not doing this at the drop of a hat.' and 'If you're comfortable telling this kind of -- it's not something that when you first meet -- say, 'Hey, by the way, for 30 years I tortured people.' I mean, it's kind of an awkward, weird, kind of thing. But I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side.'"http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070011 Before we all start jumping all over this, I really ask, a.) Did Beck really say this? It appears he did.  b.) Does this represent his opinion on the issue? It appears it does. c.)Is putting this in the article biased? Well, it is what he really said.  I would like if someone feels that he does not feel this way could they please find a quote of Beck saying differently?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/gb.01.html

Micromastia

 * Ok, here is my point. I'll try to make it clear.  The one source on it you cite (other than the ones on implants) basically says that Micromastia means "small breasts"   To quote it exactly, " Micromastia (ie, small breasts) ".  It is not a synonym for hypoplasia even if it is sometimes used as such.

Why isn't it a synonym for hypoplasia? Because a woman can have small breasts and not have hypoplasia. Hypoplasia means that some part of the body did not develop fully. A woman can have fully developed breasts that just happen to be small. I am 5' 6" in height. You could say I suffer from "Microcorpus", after all, compared to the average American, I do "suffer" from "small body".  That would be just as "medical" and as meaningful.

We can go the other route if you want, check this out: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

Now if you wish to claim that Micromastia is something like dwarfism, with hypoplasia or Poland's syndrome as two causes of it, we can go that route. But note that Medline Plus says, "Dwarfism itself is not a disease." Note that they also have a real definition of it, "under 4’ 10” as an adult."

If Micromastia is medical and not a personal opinion, then please give me a medical description of it. Micromastia is not hypoplasia, since hypoplasia is a medical condition and Micromastia is just a descriptive term.


 * In my last edit to the page, I took into account your position and changed my edit to reflect some of your points. I did remove some items that you placed in that didn't have sources but I also removed some of my own that could be seen as biased and I did leave in some of your description.  I was attempting to try to accommodate your feelings that it should be more neutral.

I have found that your latest edit totally removes everything I put in and pretends that there is no controversy. You are showing a total disregard for any other viewpoint than your own. "A pop-culture sarcastic editorial from Time is kind of tangential here." is what you say. What you are really doing is pretending that a controversy does not exist when one does.

You seem to be forgetting that this isn't a medical article for Plastic Surgery Monthly but Wikipedia. "Pop Culture" is a very important part of an encyclopedia. Controversy is not to be ignored but to be explained. Would you consider an article about George W. Bush or Bill Clinton to be valid if we removed any "pop culture" controversy about them? After all, such controversy is by biased people since an "objective viewpoint" would just list what they have done and not bother to mention that people object to any of it, right?

We can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no controversy over the term Micromastia or we could tell the truth. After all, anyone without an M.D. degree is obviously ignorant of the facts and should not be heard from, right? Fanra 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism
If I set off a bomb in the clothing store many people shop in with with the idea of randomly causing destruction and it misses killing five children by 10 seconds and instead kills a wanted rapist, that doesn't change the crime in the slightest. It was sheer luck the children weren't killed and the rapist was. If you are on the jury that hears the case against me are you going to acquit me based on my argument that I was doing the world a service by killing the rapist?

Hillary Clinton
You added the statement "Clinton said she agrees with the quote from Alan Arenholt that she used in her book, It Takes a Village: "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."

While it may be important to her Political views, the person who removed it is correct that it belongs in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, not there. Thus, when you added it back in after being told this, you ignored the basis of the article. This article isn't about every single thing she has said and done. It is supposed to be a broad outline of her with the idea that if you want to know details, you visit the links that are clearly and easily placed for that purpose. Otherwise this article would be 50 pages long. If we put this into the Political positions section, then we would also have to add every single position she takes, which is EXACTLY what Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton is for. I can't make this any clearer. I'm going to remove the sentence and hope you can understand this.

I encourage you to continue to contribute to the article but it is important to look clearly at the section you are working on and "go with the flow". If you look closely at the Political positions section you added the sentence to, you will see that it isn't for her position on specific issues but for her ratings on how liberal, moderate, or conservative she is. Economic opinions on the free market is only one part of the picture. Also, rather than pointing out, as an example, that "The National Review rates her as 10 out of 100 on their scale of Free Market supporters", you just took one quote of hers and tried to use that to say that is how she votes and stands on every free market issue.

I hope I have made my position clear and that you understand why I removed your sentence and that if you disagree we can discuss this further without any hard feelings. Thank you again for your time.

Fanra 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck - Lawfamily
User talk:Lawfamily

Glenn Beck

Hello. You might be new to Wikipedia, so I thought I would mention to you some of the guidelines we use here. I noticed that you reverted my latest edit on Glenn Beck. While some of what I posted might be considered non-neutral to some people, you removed everything I did. I had put in a lot of information about Beck, all of it well sourced and most of it was quotes from Beck himself. You may not be aware, but it is normal policy here to bring up any disputes you have with an article on the Discussion (Talk) page of the article, rather than just changing it the way you want it to be. See: Talk:Glenn Beck

Please read: Resolving disputes, especially where it says, "'Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page.'" Also, Etiquette might be helpful. I look forward to your posting on many articles here on Wikipedia and I'm sure you have much to offer, however, I would politely request that you keep these things in mind. Thank you.

Fanra 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)