User talk:Denis Diderot

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal &mdash; and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

C-FAR
Thanks for jumping-in and filling-out the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform article. The other editor was correct to say, in effect, that the article needed more information. Good job. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

New anti-semitism
Your recent edits at New anti-semitism are nicely done. -- M P er el ( talk 06:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Denis, would you be willing to help out with some French translation on Talk:New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Denis, I'm having similar French translation issues with User:Marcoo on Muhammad al-Durrah; could you help out with some translations there as well? Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Included in the dispute are concerns about the translations of specific French words, so your continued assistance would be appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More controversy has broken out at the article; would you mind taking a look again? It would be most appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't ignore your comments, Denis, they were factored in my findings. However, the specific request for arbitration concerns only the introduction itself; and this is where I will concentrate my efforts. I agree with you that the article as a whole is in serious need of cleanup. Given the contentious nature of the very concept itself, however, and my lack of familarity with the polemic on either side, I don't want to get involved in that aspect. You are very welcome to provide additional suggestions or discussion on the case page however, and I will examine them closely. Coren 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your further comments on my talk page and copied the exchange to the case page. Coren 23:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thanks for your support for my adminship. (I've always thought you had the perfect username for this project.) Cheers, -Willmcw 05:37, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism category
I understand you are attempting to be even-handed and I respect that. However, I think that adding the terrorism category to those article will be considered inflammatory, espcially on articles like Hamas. While I have made clear that I am no fan of the JDL, I do not think we should include the category there either, since it also is disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we should delete the category. There is already a "terrorist" category for actual individuals which is fine, but I think that when you place an entire group in such a label, it is inherantly inflammatory. What do you think?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree in almost all cases. There are only a few innocuous categories that actually add to the article, most are just a way of discreetly inserting pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir soliciting meatpuppets
Hi, DD. I don't know if "unfair" is the word that comes to mind, as meatpuppets are no more honorable than sockpuppets. But I will unblock the account and reblock it as a meatpuppet. Thank you very much for the link. I'll post it prominently on WP:ANI, if you haven't done so already, because I think it warrants a longer block for Shamir. See Sock puppetry: "Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia". Thanks again. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Christopher Gillberg, mediation/arbitration
Hi, the "false" statements that you removed were truthful and were sourced on the cited British Medical Journal web site. Please check before you jump! Also, your edit was listed as "minor", when it was not. I have restored things. &mdash;Daphne A 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not contact Ove Lundgren, University of Gothenburg?

I give up attempting discussion with you. You can either agree to mediation or I will submit the matter to arbitration. &mdash;Daphne A 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Arbitration has been made; see here. &mdash;Daphne A 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't thing a RfA is the correct way to resolve this dispute. The first step, as Fred Chess and SandyGeorgia have pointed out, is to discuss the issues at the talk page and find reliable sources to support every claim. If I may use some examples to illustrate this point, you need to support your claim that the Philips prize was awarded "in part because he refused to hand over the research material for scrutiny". As of now, this is only your interpretation after reading the presentation of Gillberg in the press release. The press release is not the motivation by the jury. The press release dos not say that was why he was awarded the prize. The general description of the prize states that recipients are selected on the basis of the value of their research. Pia provided the following quote from the official web page: "the prize will be given on the basis of the applicants earlier research performance and discoveries, and on his/her vision about new research". Thus whether or not Gillberg handed over data would be irrelevant for the jury. You need to support your claim that the Ethics Council didn't investigate the accusations and then dismiss the case. I have provided three references: the main Swedish news agency, TT, the main daily newspaper in Gothenburg, and Dagens Medicin, the main "trade journal" for the medical area. Two of the articles contain direct quotes from the Chairman of the Ethics Council. In order to dispute this fact, you have adduced a letter of opinion, written two years later, by former members of the Ethics Council. In this letter they state (using your translation): "after having studied the allegations [from Elinder/Kärfve] have chosen not to proceed further; by this we meant that the allegations did not make such an action motivated." In plain English, this means that they dismissed the accusaions, since they did not find anything to support them. This is exactly what the article says. Yet you take another quote out of context, add your own interpretation of this quote, and use that interpretation to claim that the Ethics Council never investigated the claims. The Ethics Coucil studied the claims for about 8 months before deciding. (This was probably much longer than the regulations allowed for.) They received detailed responses from the researchers, and they interviewed, among others, the nurse responsible for maintaining the lists of participants. It was an official enquiry and thus an investigation. --Denis Diderot 07:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "press release" is the official statement as to why Gillberg was awarded the prize. You quote from the letter.  I also quote: "the question about scientific fraud never has been investigated".  Your claim that this quote is taken out of context, or that I have given it my own "interpretation", makes no sense.  Your comments here are similar to those before.  It is because your comments/edits push such an extreme POV, and you refuse mediation, that I filed the RfArb.
 * I see that your latest edits claim "Beginning in 1996, pediatrician Leif Elinder criticized ... Neuropsychiatry in general". The claim is false: what Elinder said was that with current DSM diagnostic procedures for ADHD/DAMP, it can never be shown that those individuals have a congenital/inherited "brain defect", "brain dysfunction", "biological vulnerability" "chemical imbalance", "shortage of dopamin" (in need of Ritalin/Concerta/etc.), "shortage of noradrenalin" (in need of Strattera), etc.  The claim in the article is defamatory.  Defamation is a serious issue, as you know.  I ask you to delete the claim.
 * &mdash;Daphne A 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Daphne, just a brief note to let you know that I proofread and fact-checked that particular sentence in detail, to make sure the version introduced by user Denis Diderot would not appear misleading, based on the sources you introduced and based on other articles by Elinder. This is what Elinder stated in 2002 about neuropsychiatry in general: "The neuropsychiatric message is marketed with claims of being scientific, medically as well as pedagogically. But the diagnostics discount, among other things, the social causes and today's cultural tempo. [...] It's not strange that WHO predicts that psychiatric diseases will become become humanity’s worse scourge during the next century. An example of this trend can be seen in the last decades of violently expanding neuropsychiatry, with an ambition to focus the attention on personal traits that the surrounding society dislikes. From a smorgasbord of undesirable social behaviors, a Pandora's Box of medical diagnostics is opened. It is built on the standardized American manual DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)[...] The descriptions, listed like cookbook recipes, give doctors directions about which questions to ask."
 * This would appear to be criticism of neuropsychiatry in general, of neuropsychiatry as a science, and pointing this out would therefore not appear to be misleading, at all. Pia 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the article Talk page is a better place for this discussion; so I will copy the above there, and then give my reply.  &mdash;Daphne A 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Daphne,
 * I don't know why you put quotes around "press release". It is clearly a typical press release listed under the heading "pressrum" (press room).. It therefore contains some background information. Examples: "The prize was presented today by Denmark's Crown Princess Mary at the Rigshospital in Copenhagen" and  "The Nordic research prize is awarded for the second consecutive year". It also contains some background information on Gillberg, e.g. that he has more than 30 years experience in his discipline. An official statement from the chairman of the  "prize jury" occurs in the third paragraph. The rest is background information.


 * The quote is taken out of context, because "investigated" refers to the kind of detailed investigation that the Swedish Research Council would have carried out, had such an investigation been warranted, and because this is not from the letter itself, but from the summary in the lead. The former members obviously do not deny that they investigated the accusations and dismissed them. (Compare the quote above.) In the first letter to Dagens Medicin, they wrote: "Sanningen är att rådet aldrig friat Gillberg från anklagelserna." ("The truth is that we never cleared Gillberg of the accusations.") In a second letter, which was only signed by one of them (Tännsjö), they clarified: "Detta innebär att Gillberggruppen är friad från dessa två anklagelser. Det har vi framhållit." ("This means that the Gillberg group has been cleared of these two accusations [by Elinder and Kärfve]. This is something we have emphasized.") Therefore, when you claim otherwise, it is only your personal interpretation, and it is not supported by the sources. (Before you complain about the peculiar definition of "framållit" (emphasized), you should know that Tännsjö is a professor of philosophy.)--Denis Diderot 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The press release is the official statement as to why Gillberg was awarded the prize. As for investigation of fraud, not only was there no such investigation, but there could not have been, because the Chairman of the Committee would have been required to recuse himself from such an investigation, due to being in the same faculty as Gillberg [Lundgren, Dagens Medicin, 2005-03-16]: we have discussed this in Talk.   The published letter by the members of the Ethics Committee was written specifically because some people were claiming that the Committee had done an investigation that exonerated Gillberg from fraud: the letter states explicitly that there was no such investigation and no such exoneration.  As for Tännsjö, perhaps I should put his whole letter up, so that people can see what else he had to say?  The last version of the daughter article that I wrote tries to explain things (see  here ).  The way that the article is currently written goes against the express written statement of the members of the Ethics Committee.     &mdash;Daphne A 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the press release is not "the official statement as to why Gillberg was awarded the prize". The press release is an "official statement" by the Nordic divisions of Philips. It contains an explanation as to why he was awarded the prize, but the whole documnet is not the explanation. He was not awarded the prize because it was awarded for the second consecutive year or because it was presented at the Rigshospital in Copenhagen, or because he had 30 years experience. The clause about Gillberg being known for defending the "right to personal integrity" is background information. It does not occur in this shorter "official statement" from Philips in Denmark.


 * You are right that there was no investigation of fraud. There was an investigation to determine if Elinder's and Kärfve's accusations had any merit. The result of that investigation was that the accusations were dismissed as baseless. Because of that, there was never any full-scale investigation. This is how the system works in Sweden. What the former members wrote in the first letter was in effect that they (a) had never proved that the researchers were innocent of all wrong-doing, and (b) had not examined the actual data of the study in any detail. Because they expressed these opinions in a way that could easily be misunderstood, Tännsjö clarified in the second letter that they had, of course, cleared the researchers of the specific accusations they were investigating, but they had not cleared them of all possible accusations. I don't think you should upload the whole letter, since it is copyrighted material. The problem with that version of the article you wrote is that it explains things the wrong way. It explains things in a way that is not supported by the sources. --Denis Diderot 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This thread has been moved (by Denis) to the article Talk page, where there is some continuation.  &mdash;Daphne A 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Revision as of 19:34, 24 July 2006
You say that this edit is more informative, yet I would argue that it is POV because it appears to be an attempt to mitigate confirmed reports of Israel targeting ambulances and hospitals. Your quoting of Dr. Mohamad Jawad Khalifeh is highly selective. And the Israeli Ministry of Health quote merely restates the Israeli position that they try to avoid civilian casualties, a position which is well represented elsewhere in the article, as well as begging the question of how the Israeli Ministry of Health knows what the Israeli military's tactics are. We can't have such a quote from an Israeli official following the report of every civilian target. I would argue that these edits are POV and are not in fact more informative, as argued originally. Would you please comment on this? AdamKesher 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved to Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV AdamKesher 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated deletion of information from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Please see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict:
 * Denis Diderot has deleted these links without discussion (13:55, 25 July 2006 Denis Diderot (Talk | contribs) (rv to Dominick per talk)), and claims in his comments that this talk page is the basis for his edits when in fact the dispute is ongoing and we have been asking for reasoned, substantiated arguments from both Denis Diderot and tasc, to no avail. I have done my best to resolve this issue with civil discussion on this talk page, and have now referred the matter to Wikipedia's informal moderation: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict about the dispute (currently under informal moderation) over your deletion of these links without discussion on the Talk page:
 * I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This dispute is currently under information moderation: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I note the deletion of these links by Denis Diderot without discussion either on this talk page or the page of informal mediation given above. AdamKesher 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion obviously isn't unsubstantiated, and I've explained in detail why these links clearly violates fundamental Wikipedia policies. The fact, that you don't accept that is irrelevant, since you're obviously more concerned with yuor political peeves than with building an Encyclopedia. The article is now completely useless as a source of information. That's something you should worry about instead of adding links to unreliable websites that anyone can find anyway in 5 seconds, using Google or Yahoo. --Denis Diderot 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Consistent with WP:EL, the links under question are:
 * closely related to the article itself
 * argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
 * providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide
 * These are all excellent reasons to provide these links, which are not a random dump of links somebody added, but argued to possess the qualities above. Will you please take this up at the informal mediation case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? AdamKesher 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this information moderation is Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will revert this deletion once today. AdamKesher 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I note here that Denis Diderot has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the case currently under informal moderation, yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done per the Talk page. This page for this informal mediation is Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I note here that AdamKesher has once more posted the same false statement on this talk page. --Denis Diderot 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All statements include links to diffs. Please stop removing any links at least until the case is closed. This is essential for providing proper view on the subject for parties involved in the dispute. The previous disputes didn't bring consensus, and aren't a valid reason for action. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion was not without discussion. There has been extensive discussion and extensive explanation as shown by the diffs above. (Latest ). --Denis Diderot 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus was not reached, which means there was no agreement about that. We can also consider a temporary change to only links not posted by Adam Kesher, but as well without your deletion. Remember it's just temporary, and we need some temporary solution to prevent edit warring. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

May it be noted that the Mediation Cabal has ruled for a compromise inclusion of the said links in the article (which the Denis Diderot opposed).--Cerejota 05:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By now, it still can be discussed, if you come to the case page, though the current compromise already can be implemented. Also, I've replied your questions on my talk page. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR/Mediation notice
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. I've counted five reverts within a 24 hour period from 8:20 26 July 2006 to 8:07 27 July 2006 with removal of the above-disputed links as the intended result. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.)

I have not blocked you for this action as my attention was drawn to it during conversation regarding mediation, and would like to bring to your attention that there is a mediation case open regarding this article at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Mediation and would encourage you to refrain from further violations of 3RR until you have resolved your dispute with other editors regarding this situation. Thank you! :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a stupid mistake. I noticed it myself, but much too late. I shouldn't have tried to edit Wikipedia articles at all that day since I was too tired and busy with other things. So now I follow a simple rule: only edit Wikipedia if you've had more than 3 hours sleep and have enough time to eat lunch. --Denis Diderot 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
It's entirly up to you if you want to engage into the mediation process. But it seems worthwile to me. --Barberio 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cudos
Hi. I want to express my appreciation of your patience on the Christopher Gillberg article. Despite being pressed by several parts, you have behaved examplary by remaining calm, demanding discussions, proper sources, and pointing to relevant policies. I do not want to get involved, prefering to be a neutral part, but I have followed the debates since they started. / Fred-Chess 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links up for TFD again
One of the people wanting the template deleted has demanded another shot at getting their way, and the template is up for deletion again.

See Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 7 --Barberio 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Requests_for_arbitration. AdamKesher 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Noel and Barberio
That conflict was so long ago that I no longer really remember who was who, I'm afraid. If the statement was unfair given the content of the mediation, then I guess one merely has to link the mediation page after his comment, and the arbs can decide for themselves whether the statement is relevant. Frankly though, I don't belive uncited purely ad hominem comments have much weight in an RFAr. Asbestos 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (not logged in)

Arbitration - do we need it?
After some good sleep, I've looked at our ArbCom case from another perspective. It's, in fact, a war about a couple of links. Well, the arbitration will start in 20 hours, but I'd like to suggest the last proposal: every participant recuses himself from editing the links in questioned pages for a few months, and we just leave that to other editors. The ArbCom will accept the case, but, well, a peaceful solution might be better. I've posted more on Requests for arbitration. Just think about that and about whether you really need arbitration; and, if you agree with that, just sign there. It's the last chance for a peaceful resolution. Thanks in advance! -- CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kieslowski soundfile
I thought I might add the Kieslowski pronunciation soundfile you linked to on the Kieslowski discussion page to the article, but I would need to provide copyright info. Did you create the file? Can I upload it to wikicommons? Fwend 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg
Sandy,

First of all, I'd like to make clear that I really appreciate your help with the Gillberg articles. I reverted your addition of the link to the new article only because I didn't have the time to fix both articles at once. The new article created by Daphne A unfortunately contained the same kind of unsourced and potentially defamatory information that she had previously added to the Gillberg article. Therefore I wanted to keep the wikilink out of the Gillberg article until someone had begun to fix that other article. I fully understand that it's difficult for you with all the sources in Swedish, but I wonder if you could perhaps just take a quick look at the current Christopher Gillberg? Do you think the "criticism and controversy" section should be made even shorter, or perhaps moved out of the article alltogether? Also I wonder if the article seems sufficiently well sourced to you (understanding that you can't verify that the cited refs actually support the claims) --Denis Diderot 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, Denis, but it's darn near impossible for me to sort out the controversy and POV without some English-language sources. I can only rely on what I've heard in TS/ADHD circles, which is that DAMP is highly controversial and not well accepted.  I haven't studied the controversy well.  Isn't there *something* you all can find in English that can summarize the situation for those of us who don't speak Swedish?  Sandy 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In reviewing your talk pages, I'm wondering if you have any input that may be helpful on Israel-Venezuela relations? Some want to delete all (well-sourced) allegations of Chávez as anti-semitic, and there are questions of how the article is titled, whether it covers enough history of the prior good relations between Israel and Venezuela, etc. Sandy 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some minor tweaking of wording. It seems to read proportionally:  I'm not able, though, to make conclusions about POV, although the article seems well sourced.  Sandy 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will try to add something about his research later this week. --Denis Diderot 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Denis, thank you for catching the mistake in attribution for the Elisabeth Rynning article. Her name was not entered below the article as is customary, and the lead spoke about her in the third person. I need to take a break from that story now, effective immediately. The false accusations entered into the article about him were so obvious and so unfairly skewed, but in pointing them out, I find that it's too easy to fall for the temptation to ignore things that are not that great about his methodology and ideas. Obviously, pioneering science must by definition advance to the next level by many and frequent revisions and retesting of hypotheses, but it's hard enough to argue that point with people with their noses stuck in Kuhn, Foucault or Derrida books,, or with those who think neuropsychiatry is as reliable as reading your horoscope, harder yet with the Expressen/Kvällsposten-quote fan club. Now I'm digressing, but the weekend is here..did you see the latest statement about ADHD in this debate thread?). Pia 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pia, I think the barn star awarded by Fred Chess was very well deserved, and I hope to integrate your text into the the other article later. The kind of small mistake you mentioned is more or less inevitable when we edit articles here and it is not significant. Elinder's and Kärfve's strategy was really quite effective, if not as effective as they had hoped for. They accused the researchers of misconduct and at the same time demanded access to the data. If they were deinied access to the data, they could claim that the data would have proved scientific misconduct. If they were given access, then they would claim that the data provided evidence of scientific misconduct. The researchers would be unable to defend themselves, since they could not refer to the details in the confidential material. If the accusations were forwarded to the research council, then that would mean that Gillberg had been under a major investigation for scientific misconduct. If the allegations were not forwarded, they could claim that the accusaions had never been properly investigated. In any of these possible scenarios, many people would say "no smoke without a fire" and thus Gillberg's public reputation would be damaged. Elinder and Kärfve also handled media better than the Gillberg group. They knew that journalists depend on the principle of public access and will defend it in almost any case. Yet this case could also be compared to the situation where opponents demand access to a journalist's sources under the principle of public access. With that metaphor, I believe the journalists' reaction would have been rather different. Regarding Elinder, you should also read this and this. According to Gillberg, Elinder knew Gillberg's wife since childhood, and they had met in person many times. Gillberg said that they stopped meeting in part because Elinder would carry out long discussions about neuropsychiatry (interview, Dagens Medicin, May 6, 2003). Apart from the public criticism, Elinder had apparently also written numerous letters to Gillberg's colleagues and various authorities. --Denis Diderot 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Denis, it's really painful when soap opera mixes with science and becomes headline news. It's extra painful to have the "big fish in a small pond" (svenska avundsjukan) scenario played out right in front of the entire world. I sure hope academia doesn't stoop down to the level of the opinion piece by Elinder again, and let him continue riding on their back to fame, by trying to answer the accusation that "ADHD is a horoscope concept", or earlier statement by him, such as those about how people with chronic fatigue syndrome, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and depression need to get over themselves and realize that "a little discomfort" is not an illness. The only positive thing about this whole miserable case is that it demonstrates how effective Swedish democracy is. When a new situation arises that make important laws clash, debate follows and the government acts to attempt to make sure the innocent, in this case human subjects in scientific studies, will not lose the protection intended. See for example  this comment from the Research Council about the law revision. Pia 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: seems the official translation of the new "etiska rådet" entity in Gbg is The Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg. See also name of old entity, in case it's needed in the Gothenburg study article. Pia 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League
Please stop posting your nonsense. You have no evidence to support your bias claims. I personally called the FBI and asked them if they were a terrorist group and the answer was no.-- eternalsleeper

Gracenotes' RFA
Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)