User talk:Jance/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Jance! Thanks for weighing in over on the Breast implant article discussion. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience: And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;. Best of luck, Jance, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
 * When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Quack
Hi Jance and welcome,

I don't think a quack is an incompetent doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quack&diff=90153219&oldid=89656982). I think that the description "a person who practices quackery, i.e., an impostor who claims to have qualifications to practice medicine" makes it possible to use it as an insult for an incompetent doctor. What do you think? --MarSch 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lupus Erythematosus
Hi Jance! I want to thank you for your input on the Lupus erythematosus page. I feel the breast implant issue is not taken seriously enough and as a trigger for Lupus it needs to be placed out there so people can learn and understand the dangers. Especially with the FDA removing the ban on silicone implants. I ma however reading the wording and wonder if we can better word the article for a clearer understanding. Perhaps even a whole sub-category toward this issue. I would like to see if we could better word what you added though. I didn't want you to think I was jumping on your addition, just clarifying it, as I am in agreement with you. Thanx again and hope we can work together on itMystar 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine - I was tired, and not sure if it was the best way it could be worded myself. I'll take a look - have you edited yet?Jance 05:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope :) I'll be swamped today so I won't have time to try. It isn't bad, I just think it needs to be re grouped. I'll wait for you though no biggie. Hope your day is good 68.188.151.245 13:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've been following that whole thing. My wife and I have great interest in that area and I agree Oliver is using his so-called "station of profession" to bully the page. The fact that it was locked is outrageous and less than fair. I don't think he would get away with changing the page, but we can try to work toward keeping that from happening. Having a wikistalker I'm more than familiar with people like that following you back to your edits and wreaking havoc with them for no more than their pleasure. I'm sure my wikienemy will also be on the prowl to Oliver to come over and edit. Take solace though, actions of people like them are not what bother me, on the contrary...I find them sad amusing little people, as it is the fact that they are clueless in their own delusion and think they get to people like me. While it is important information, don't let it attach to you, rather allow it to make you think. As a wise person once said "People are stupid! They are willing to believe a lie, either because they fear it to be true, or they want it to be true". So they bury themselves in their little world of delusion to the exclusion of all else. Think of the solution! Not the problem. The problem exists, only the solution will of value.Mystar 13:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Jance, I find that your input has sparked some activity more or less attempting to remove your addition, even when I tried to re-word it to a more meaningful statement. So not some medical school trainee wants to take it out all together and call it an edit war...lol... SO it looks like we need a consensus...any thoughts? Mystar 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Anyway, I know how it feels when someone starts editing one of your 'baby' articles, and it must be many times worse when it's your own article. I'm full of friendly warnings, I think it annoys people. WLU 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take your time with the references, wikipedia is a life-sucking beast. I'll put them up shortly after, when I've got the time.

The worst thing that can happen to DZ's article is it'll be deleted, and the longer that tag is sitting at the top of the page, the more likely it gets flagged for deletion. Probably the biggest thing anyone can do to help would be what it suggests - putting in references to DZ in other articles. If she really doesn't care or want the article, she can nominate it for deletion herself, but if she wants to keep it, the way it is now only people who are searching for her exactly will find it. Again, I don't know enough about her or the topic to even know where to put it, and if you put it in haphazardly on major articles, you'll probably get big challenges about notability (i.e. why is this here, she's not notable enough to be on the page). As far as doctors and researchers go, there are so many of them that you have to be pretty huge to get an article.

Anyway, again if she really didn't want the article, you could suggest nominating it for deletion. She could move all the info she likes to her own userpage though, if she still wants it kept on wikipedia. Just my thoughts. WLU 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Peacock
I noticed what he had done but in a way you are your own worst enemy in these discussions. You shouldn't have rushed in and reverted: wait for him to respond to the criticism on the talk pages. You'd be much more effective if you could always demonstrated you had gone the second mile to make peace. That whole article needs deleting in my view but its a pretty low priority on the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile stay calm and don't let him get to you: if you do he has won. --BozMo talk 16:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I allowed my disgust to get the better of me. I will leave it alone now - actually, would you like me to revert it back? I will, if you think it would be helpful. The type of suggestion you gave me on my talk page is constructive, not insulting, and I appreciate it. Sometimes it is difficult to see past the long history I have with Oliver. Jance 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just leave it that's fine. Best Wishes --BozMo talk 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett
Thanks for your contributions to Stephen Barrett. That clarifies things nicely. You did remove a number of links and explanations that I felt were useful, leaving just "Thus they should be judged based on the legal standard in such cases". Do you think it would be worthwhile to explain or link to an explanation of what the legal standard actually is? --Ronz 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your partial rewording to "Generally, a public figure plaintiff must show that the defendant published (or republished) defamatory statements with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. (See: New York Times v. Sullivan)" and was wondering what work it would take to make it appropriate. I don't have any formal legal background myself. --Ronz 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed replies. I basically agree. Barrett's legal strategy is very questionable and naive from my perspective. He's accomplished little with it other than to give ammunition to those he criticizes. Meanwhile, I appreciate your help and suggestions. Maybe you can take a look at Barrett v. Rosenthal in the future? --Ronz 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that his approach (or his lawyer's...!) has been naive and an example of poor planning. This case and the KingBio case are both characterized by these problems. In this case he should have gone after Bolen, the original poster, and not the reposters (all of them). If he had success with Bolen, then he might consider going after the others. In the KingBio case, he was asked to join as an expert witness, but all homeopathic practices and advertising are based on its uniquely protected position in the FDA. (Homeopathic products do not have to prove they are effective.) Instead of going after KingBio and other sellers of homeopathic water-without-any-active-ingredients, he should seek to get the FDA laws changed. Then all the rest will fall like a house of cards. The whole thing reeks of naive idealism in a cynical and cold world where truth and scientific accuracy are of little worth in courts of law. -- Fyslee 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that truth and scientific accuracy mean little in a court of law. The standards for expert witnesses are not easy to meet, and to a large degree depend on what the prevailing medical wisdom is (what if they are wrong?).  Secondly, once the experts pass that threshold, a jury then determines which are more believable.  That is how it should be in a democracy.

As to Barrett's lawyers - I could not believe my eyes. I don't call that naive. I call that stupid or incompetent or both. A first year law student would flunk basic torts on that argument.Jance 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett's responses
I'm uneasy with references to Barrett's responses being removed. Did you look at the discussion about them before doing so? Biographies have special guidelines WP:BLP. I haven't looked into these issues myself, but wanted you to be aware in case it becomes a point of contention. --Ronz 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was quick: . --Ronz 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like there are specific guidelines allowing for the subjects of an article to defend themselves. I think with all the work that's been done on the article that Barrett would probably find it much less offensive.  I'm going to try to tidy it and see what happens. --Ronz 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember past discussions on the issue. It's probably in the archives, though I bet Fyslee knows. --Ronz 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I found why it was allowed for so long: --Ronz 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that the editors who would otherwise removed it, decided to leave it to make Barrett look bad. --Ronz 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, let's just say that there doesn't seem to have been a serious discussion of the issue. --Ronz 01:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. --Ronz 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hulda Clark - from what I've read about her, she's definitely one of the worst of the worst in snakeoil. No doubt she made a tempting target for Barrett.

If I remember correctly, Homeopathy was given special legal status by the US government in the early 1900s that survives to this day and protects it better than any other SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) treatment, with the possible exception of chiropractic. Barrett's attacks on homeopathy and chiropractic seem incredibly naive.

Whatever legal councel he's had over the years has obviously been inept. --Ronz 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you again for bringing your perspective and legal expertise to these Barrett articles. These are the worst cases of WP:Wikilawyering and blatant disregard for wiki policy and guidelines that I've ever seen. I hope it doesnt discourage you. --Ronz 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, excellent (and lots of) work. One minor quibble, don't let WP:OR get in the way :-).  But an excellent effort.  Shot info 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Office
I really don't have any idea what you are talking about, however, I don't believe the article was under official OFFICE protection. If it were, there would be a record of Danny protecting it in the history and I couldn't find that. I suggest you ask Tyrenius about it. Sarah Ewart 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarah gave you her answer. Can you follow her advice please? --Guinnog 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, she told me there was no WP:Office. ANd I then asked her why Samir then removed my comment for WP:Office.  I also asked Samir.Jance 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You really need to ask Tyrenius and Samir about it. I think Tyrenius was communicating with the office via email and I'm not personally aware of the outcome of those discussions. But, as I said, I don't think the article ever came under OFFICE protection because there should be some evidence of it in the history (such as the OFFICE template, stubbing of the article, protection by Danny) and I couldn;t find it. As far as my opinion of the article is concerned, I'm not at all impressed by it. Many of the references are unsatisfactory and some don't even seem to match up, such as using this patent for Gel-filled implants in this sentence: "Maxwell is credited with a signifigant advance in the design of tissue expanders used for breast reconstruction, co-developing(U.S. patent 5,092,348) textured surfaces..." And the patent number in the article (5,092,348) does not match the patent number in the reference (5,282,857). What's up with that? I will try to make more edits to the article when I've got a bit more time. Sarah Ewart 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why can't you ask or expect a civil answer from Tyrenius or Samir? Both are members of the community I hold in high regard. Do you mind explaining the issue, calmly, as you see it and I will try to advise you? --Guinnog 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your reply on Sarah's user talk. I only intervened in order to try to help you. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. Best wishes. --Guinnog 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP & WP:RS
We seem to be disagreeing upon our interpretations of WP:BLP. As I've repeately discussed, I'm focusing on Wp:blp, and would like to explain my interpretation and hear enough about yours that I understand the difference in perspective. Ultimately, I think it all comes down to the quality of the source material, but I want to make sure there aren't other disagreements. --Ronz 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mind if we have all the conversation in one place? Copying your comment on my user page below: --Ronz 19:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With what are we in disagreement? I agree that that a personal web page is poorly sourced. Because of the natue of Barrett's notability, it makes sense to have a paragraph discussing the disagreement (similar to the article you mentioned). The links - as links - could then be allowed, without including the quote in the text. I believe that is similar to what the other article did. Jance 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Ronz. It was making me a little bug-eyed, anyway.  As I wrote on your talk page, I am not sure we disagree very much, if at all.  Essentially, I am unsure about this particular issue, and think the parallel with Amazing Randy is useful.  Because of the nature of Barrett's notability, it makes sense to have a paragraph discussing the disagreement (similar to the article you mentioned).  The links - as links - may then be allowed, without including the quote in the text.  I believe that is similar to what the other article did, but I would have to look more closely..  But there is where we can look for parallels.  It should come down to the verifiability of the material and the type of original source, if that is the case.  Here, the original source is a personal website. Not verifiable, unless that person is unusually famous, as is Barrett.  And that is and will be the contention of his critics - if Barrett quotes from a personal webpage are allowed, why not this other guy etc.  One way to deal with that would be to compare similar issues on the article you found - Amazing Randy.   It is very much like this article.  Why don't we use examples from there, or see if we can find anything specific that is coparable to here?  Jance 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in our discussions in Talk:Stephen_Barrett, I think a good argument could be made to remove the "Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity" section completely. The sources we have (and still have) aren't good enough.  Yes, I think some sort of criticism section should be in the article, so I compromised that it would be worthwhile to move along with the best sources we can find.  However, I agree with David D who contributed to our discussion with: "I agree that many, if not all, the controversial cases should stay. The he said, she said, he said, she said style though is a diasaster and completely unencyclopedic. There is just no need for such depth."I'm not sure what he meant by "cases" though - sounds more like he's referring to the legal cases. --Ronz 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that by David D. That is why I raised most of that section in the first place.  What I am suggesting is that we go through the section paragraph by paragraph before deciding whether to delete it entirely (the he said/she said has got to go).  i think that would find more ultimate acceptance than merely deep-sixing the entire section with no further discussion.      My guess is that we will find that three different critical sections could - and should - be combined into one.  Jance 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Steven Milloy
Hello - thanks for the note and I see you've come across one of my pet projects (the article on Steven Milloy). He hasn't gone so far as to call evolution "junk science", although he's surprisingly accepting of creationism/ID for a self-styled skeptic. Feel free to take a crack at editing the article to remove redundancies... contrary to appearances, I really don't feel too much ownership about it. About my comments at the RfC, which I don't know if you've seen - please don't take them the wrong way; they sound harsher now that I'm re-reading them than I had intended. I just think it's useful to have an accurate contribution list for an editor. It's normal to be a little ashamed and want to disassociate yourself from some of the edits you make when you're a newbie and just starting out on Wikipedia - I certainly feel that way about a number of my early edits. Anyhoo, take care. MastCell 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett
Thanks for your work on this article. As you have noted, a few editors are camped out on that article and change happens slowly. I'll take a look over the next few days with a fresh eye. You asked about the law cases-- they used to be in one big paragraph, but it made the information very hard to scan for a casual reader. This way, they can get the idea of the number and scope of the cases. These controversial biographies are challenging but can be fun if you don't get too frustrated by the speed of the progress. Unfortunately, neutrality trumps style on these, so evocative words usually don't make the cut. I had to walk away from this one for a while! Jokestress 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)