User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2012/October

T h a n  ks
I’ve since been further studying WPs, and am (still) trying to comply with them. I am the relatively newbie editor who proposed that “Deleted” section in Robert_O._Young, (in three substantially differing forms): a heart-driven howl of  T h a n  ks  to you for putting my then-proposed section onto its “Talk” page. (Even after studying WPs, I still didn’t well-understand the purpose of Article’s “Talk” pages [as may be inferred from my “It’s not ‘talk’.” in the Edit summary of my second attempt], until I read all of what followed “Deleted” – most restorative and enlightening.) I have no desire to “edit war” – only to include information that is essential to properly understanding Young’s book and positions.

Please see Talk:Robert_O._Young for further Article-specific commentary.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  T h a n  ks  again. :)    67.91.184.187 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Clarification
I'm sorry about editing the wrong section earlier, I'm still getting used to this. I appreciated you input on my edits on Friday (9/28/12) to the evidence basis section of the naturopathy page. I thought I had correctly amended my addition based on your concerns, but I've just discovered the entire addition was deleted. May I ask why so I can avoid the same mistake(s) in the future? I thought I had finally made some progress in adapting to wikipedia and making contributions, but then it's just deleted and I have no idea why. Any clarification would vbe much appreciated. Stephanieaanp (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp
 * Perhaps you haven't yet discovered the "History" functionality of Wikipedia. For each page, there is an associated History, which shows the prior edits. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&action=history it appears that user:A13ean is the person you need to ask. I hadn't even seen your edits at that point. The edit comments indicate that he/she thought your interpretation of the source might be misleading. If I get some time I'll have a looksee. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I cannot find the deletion of my Friday edits in the history. I will contact A13ean as well. Would him rejecting my Monday contribution have somehow reverted the Friday one as well? thanks for your time, I'm really sorry to bother you. Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. It looks like you may have forgotten to log in, hence the edits show under an IP number vice your username. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes this morning and yesterday morning (10/2 and 10/1). Is there any way I can ammend that? I found the removal. It's cited for non-neutral language. 17:33. I don't quite understand that but I'll take it up with A13ean. Thanks again. Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think admins can revise that sort of thing if you need it, but it might take an oversighter to thoroughly "disappear" the IP number. Try asking at wp:ANB first. To just insert your signature in the talkpage, just go ahead and revise it. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ALCAT
After reviewing the ALCAT page, I'm appalled that you've atrociously misrepresented sources on the ALCAT page for years. You are the one that as lot of explaining to do. Since when are users allowed to create their own personal coattrack? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show any evidence in MEDRS to support that? I'm happy to discuss any of the individual assertions, but wholesale deletion of top-quality sources is not on.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fluoride Action Network
I commented on your comment at Articles for deletion/Fluoride Action Network with a question. Also, the discussion could use more input, so please come help.

Thanks in advance,

-SM 08:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up at WP:AfD/FAN. I replied there, the big issues being:
 * Everyone is citing WP:CORP not WP:NONPROFIT
 * FAN seems to meet WP:NONPROFIT amply


 * What am I missing?


 * -SM 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, wp:NONPROFIT is just a direct shortcut to a specific section of wp:CORP, so I wouldn't make too much of the distinction, it's all the same page. I'm unclear why you think FAN meets even NONPROFIT. A passing mention in a source about something else is not enough. Unless the source discusses FAN, rather than just attributes something or someone to them, then it isn't substantially about FAN. These sources all seem to be about debates on fluoridation, not about the organization. What you need to find and cite is something like an organizational history, with staff biographies, sources of financial support, etc. Such sources are admittedly tough to find, but that is what determines wp:Notability. Sources which are just FAN's own product (or direct lifts from those) won't do. We need to show that a seriously credible fact-checking publisher, independent from FAN, took the trouble to write about them. When we look at authors, for instance, we don't use their own publishers' bio-blurbs. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your explanation of your reasoning, but I see things I don't understand:  WP:NONPROFIT is under Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, which FAN clearly meets. The media coverage pulled by Google and the coverage on the FAN site show activism by FAN in most areas across what is an international effort (international, that is, with respect to the small minority of countries which actually do fluoridate drinking water).  They have been at this for twelve years, with many of their efforts demonstrably covered in the mainstream press. Secondary sourcing specifically on organizational history, with staff biographies, sources of financial support is something you appear to be adding above merely information about the organization and its activities. Nice to have though such an addition seems to be, its absence shouldn't mandate a deletion.
 * I'm seeing three tendencies in the AfD/FAN,
 * A heightened bar for notability, and disdain for a copious quantity of sources, including both press and express acknowlegement by many anti-fluoride organizations
 * A disparagement of the subject (FAN, and more broadly, anti-fluoridation) and a conflation of FAN with certain bad actors on Wikipedia
 * A lack of concern for how properly to represent the topic of opposition to water fluoridation, and the counter-intuitive result that there is an article on the obviously notable Water fluoridation controversy, but no group of any notability is actually currently opposing it (or is there one more notable than FAN?)


 * This paradox concerns me deeply, and I am having trouble squaring it,


 * -SM 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CORP and its section WP:NONPROFIT are not the main guideline, they only amplify and interpret WP:N. You say "heightened bar for notability", but that is not the case. WP:N explains the need for "significant coverage", which is different from the many instances of trivial coverage for FAN. Just find one good RS that seriously addresses the FAN as a topic and then wp:N is met. I gave you some examples of what such a source about the FAN might hypothetically address.
 * Wikipedia covers many other contentious subjects, such as Abortion, Cold fusion, Homeopathy or Race and intelligence. Disparagement of the subject matter as wp:FRINGE does not bear upon its wp:N. Yes some contentious subjects tend to draw bad actors and POV pushers, but again, that's not the point.
 * You contend that this result is counter-intuitive, but why? There are many advocacy groups on many issues. Just advocating doesn't make them notable. Someone has to publish something significant about them first.

LeadSongDog come howl!  03:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The guideline clearly states alternate criteria, not an amplification. Point 2., "or" .  Independent evidence of notice is abundant.  You may have higher standards, but they are beyond the actual guidelines.  You (plural) are raising the bar. For the purposes of AfD, that seems out of process.  What am I missing?


 * -SM 06:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, I see why that new "alternate" wording you quote might lead you astray, but I'm sure that isn't the intention. See the archived discussion last March at . The long established intent is that the GNG is the rule, while various other topic-specific notability guidelines act as aids to interpreting the GNG in the context of the topic category. They all boil down to asking ourselves this: "Will we have enough reliably sourced information to create an interesting article about the topic?"
 * Looking deeper at what a good source looks like, consider the W5 questions which are taught in any Journalism 101 class: who, what, where, when, why (and sometimes how). If the source is substantively about topic X, the source should answer most if not all of these questions about X. Indeed, a good journalist will try to do so in the first paragraph of a news article. On the other hand if X is simply the answer to one of the W5 en passant, the source won't speak to the others. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look at the discussion, but in the meanwhile, consider this: after I spend time mining this thread, I expect to find that,
 * the language is clearly intended to expand, not restrict, notability (making the use of "any" and "or" obvious and necesary)
 * the language is clearly not additional to other criteria WP:N, WP:CORP (such language would use "only", "and")
 * the language is the result of clear consensus
 * I haven't really been "led astray" here at all


 * This brings me back to,


 * I am familiar with the five-Ws, the Wikipedian history of external sourcing generally, and the relevance to Journalism. I wonder at that so many media outlets seem willing to confer notability on FAN (by noting and commenting on FAN actions and public FAN statements) without waiting for a set of third parties to publish the FAN org chart and ten years of FAN tax returns.  With this, you are raising the bar, considerably.  For something as grave as an AfD, that is, IMHO, well out of process.


 * Finally, I would direct your attention to the following sequence,


 * I asked to whitelist the essay 50 Reasons, which is ubiquitous in anti-fluoridation circles, so as to add a link to Further reading on Water fluoridation controversy, posing the question of why fluoridealert.org was blacklisted in the first place
 * Someone asked for whitelist variances to do simple maintenance on the FAN article
 * FAN is listed for AfD


 * You would be hard-pressed to find anti-fluoridation coverage in the last eight years that doesn't mention FAN, or mention an anti-fluoridation organization openly acknowleging the guidance of FAN. Wikipedia would appear to be pretending&mdash; strenuously&mdash; that it does not exist.


 * -SM 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's enough. I've tried (more than I really wanted) to steer you towards the kind of source you need to find. If you are not interested in doing so, there's no point. Good luck persuading others. Adieu.LeadSongDog come howl!  01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss your views on what is a good source, only that the guidelines at WP:NONPROFIT seemed clear and of immediate consequence in the AfD. Also, it is not that I am disinterested in providing sources, but that I have referred to several copious google searches, and have been told, effectively, "Nope, none of those", including citations that mention,


 * Dr Connett's education, professorship,
 * Dr Connett's foundation of FAN, speaking engagements, position statements, documentaries and activism as head of FAN
 * Other organizations citing FAN
 * Mainstream press citing statements by FAN on issues


 * For example, in your view, what sort of notices are,
 * this mention by Physicians for Social Responsibility?
 * this mention by the NY Times?
 * this in Scientific American (last paragraphs)?
 * this bio from St Laurence University?


 * Also, in the PSR notice, they state, quite credibly, a long (but not at all exhaustive) list of organizations before whom he has presented (on behalf of FAN), "He has given presentations at the International Society for Fluoride Research conferences in New Zealand, Germany and China; the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research; the American College of Toxicology; the US EPA; the US National Research Council; the CDC in Nanjing, China; the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Health and Children in Ireland, a parliamentary committee in the Knesset, Israel as well as to many citizens groups in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, the UK and the US. " How can he be invited to present before the EPA,  American College of Toxicology, etc. and yet somehow not be notable?


 * -SM 07:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to find evidence for the wp:N of Connett, or of the FAN? LeadSongDog come howl!  05:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent question. I would argue from what I have seen that both are notable, for different reasons, though Dr. Connett does not have an article. It would be interesting to explore how either would be more notable than the other.


 * I was wondering how to know whether Dr. Connett has ever had an article. I didn't find a public log entry.  Tried looking for pages matching WP:AfD/* (shocked to see Articles for deletion/"Paul is Dead" clues from Abbey Road).  Not being an admin, I don't know if that is an adequate search. He also has a background in waste management policy.  I found a few published papers on waste management and fluoride-related questions.


 * My more immediate question was what your assessment of the above sources would be. Usually, when FAN appears, it is because FAN/Dr. Connett have been asked to speak to the anti-fluoridation viewpoint on a story. Often, he is the only one consulted, sometimes there are also other experts. Sometimes, the story has arisen because a group has looked to FAN for either scientific or political leadership (or both) and taken action.


 * In most of these mentions, it is less about the players and more about the issue. Admittedly, I have not found the long, thoughtful analysis of FAN's history and activities in The Nation, Atlantic Monthly, or People Magazine's "Paul Connett- Sexist Toxicologist Alive!" issue.


 * As for FAN, I am comfortable that these sources establish,
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
 * ...and that these are adequate criteria to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, consistent with WP:W as a whole. It is a large tissue of diverse small references, with a consistency over time. One could use third-party sources to establish most of the facts in the FAN article (who, what, where, when, why, and even how). I find it difficult to believe, however, that I need to somehow verify through independent third-party citations, say, the composition of FAN's board, or that FAN has relationships with various small regional organizations which declare themselves either affiliated with or informed by FAN.


 * I undestand the logic of WP:BARE, but since WP:N is a minimal requirement, it should err on the side of inclusion. Questions like, if this is not notable, then what of its type is? are of particular relevance.


 * The article, BTW, is gone. According to Wikipedia, now, water fluoridation is opposed only by silly old anticommunists, misguided voters, and various unnotable- and unlinkable- organizations.  That is to say, Wikipedia is really not an adequate (much less neutral) resource to survey the topic Water fluoridation controversy, undermining in this case our claim to the privileged position we enjoy at the top of Google returns.


 * -SM 09:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At some time, a source may materialize that substantially addresses the FAN, in which case it will then be possible to create the article, but we do not manufacture wp:N by piecing together snippets from many sources. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that you would comment on the four example sources I provided. -SM 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to win the lottery, but that hasn't happened yet either. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from that rotting corpse that used to be a horse. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for snark, it's only four sources, and not an idle question: I would have thought myself able to judge what constitutes adequate sourcing, now I find myself seriously out-of-sync with more deletionist editors. It is frustrating.  -SM  07:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, a final comment: The PSR biobit talks about Connett. Ditto the SLU bio. Neither give a sniff of independent authorship and their mention of FAN is only passing, less than a sentence each. The Fagin piece in SciAm is certainly credible, but again has only passing mention of FAN. The Schor piece on Greenwire just names FAN, along with Beyond Pesticides, in a single sentence. Surely you didn't need this comment to know that. LeadSongDog  come howl!  13:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dog. Adieu, -SM  22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear power by country
Category:Nuclear power by country has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy
You actually think a science denialist will go to a library and look up real scientific research? What are you smoking there LeadSongDog? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely someone in the building must have walked past a burning joint at some time. THC has measurable effects in the way it's normally ingested, but at the 12C "potentization" of office air, homeopathic THC ought to focus my concentration remarkably, right? That must be how I remember that the "denialist" is a conflicted practitioner of the dark art. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * SNORT. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't you one of those administrators? Can't you deal with he who shall not be named? Isn't there some official probation on the Homeopathy article against those who disrupt the talk page regularly, and they can be summarily executed at dawn? If you aren't an admin, can you not conjure up one somewhere? I don't know any, except the ones who pollute my page with various warnings about once a month threatening me with bodily harm, then usually disappearing after I ignore them. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not. I'd rather stick used needles in my eyes. The place to ask is wp:AE, if you want to go that way. I have no love of wikilawyering, so I try to stick to discussion an content-based arguments. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I should gave known that. Those that edit do. Those that don't either vandalize or become admins. Natural selection works oddly on Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In case you own an Irony Meter™. Homeopathy gone insane. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, there's no app for that! There is, however, a podcast. Maybe I'll listen to it sometime.LeadSongDog  come howl!  04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

t3
fyi, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F2690512&diff=520649136&oldid=520415205 t3 requires a time stamp]. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed that one, thank you. Now fixed.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)