User talk:MerlinVtwelve/Archive 1

Recovered memory therapy
Your edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recovered_memory_therapy&diff=171031982&oldid=171031587 is excellent. I wish I could have done that. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RMT "The term has in the past been controversial"
The assertation that "The term has in the past been controversial" does require a source - how else is a reader able to check it for accuracy? Please read WP:VER. SmithBlue (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking for is a source that shows it was controv. SmithBlue (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - at present I'm just working to ID then polish off all the unsourced statements. Then after we get to discuss relative weight based on reliability of sources. SmithBlue (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do I interpret correctly that you no longer think statements I tagged should remain for an unspecified period as suggested by DreamGuy? If so I would appreciate you noting your new view on the RMT talk page. Doing so will help recuce the volume of outrage when I get round to deleting the unsourced material. My talk page has some more thoughts on the effect of unsourced materials on a Wikipedia article. I am very curious as to what the article would look like using only sourced materials - even hardwe to imagine what it will be when WP:Weight is applied. SmithBlue (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hello T for Timothy,

I see you've been praised by Arthur Rubin regards the RMT article, and you weren't bit by SmithBlue. That's endorsement enough for me to say have at thee and worry about the consequences later. I really must recommend that you do it yourself - the best way to learn. I'd be happy to help, but the kind of work I like to do on articles like these takes considerable time, and I'm in short supply these days. I would suggest you scan WP:BRD, WP:PROVEIT, WP:MEDRS and go to town like it were a fallen oak and you a chainsaw. Which is to say, remove anything unsourced, remove anything that's not sourced to a reliable publisher (the reliable ones usually have their own wikipedia page, or have the name of an actual university in the title - failing that, check out WP:RSN), remove anything that in particular makes claims of effectiveness without actual, peer-reviewed studies to back it up, and then see if anyone objects. If they do, then start discussing. I'm happy to answer questions, I might get to looking at it if I think of it (but that's somewhat unlikely), but I just can't guarantee I'll be able to do a proper job of it. Generally the "This Article Is Very Important" crowd is a drive-by one, unfamiliar with sourcing requirements. I generally see little reason to preserve their poor quality additions.

I also point you to an editor's best friend - google books. It has a surprising number of very useful titles in this area, and it's searchable. Combined with diberri's citation generator (plug in an ISBN and you have a template), you're golden.

Your other shortcut is to refer the page to User:ScienceApologist or User:Orangemarlin - I think they have more time than I, and their editing approach makes me look like a fuzzy bunny stuffed with happiness. In other words, their tolerance for low-quality sources and pseudoscience is, if possible, less than zero. Between the three of us, eventually one should get to it appropriately. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not SA just at this moment. But seriously, I really, really encourage you to be bold.  The worst that can happen is you'll be reverted.  Don't re-revert, and come ask for advice, you'll be fine (if I'm not around, User:SandyGeorgia is a nigh-miracle worker, and is almost guaranteed to respond to your inquiries).  Editors willing to do the hard work of expanding, sourcing, deleting and researching are in short supply, I hope you'll decide to be one of them.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go! Keep at it.  If you're not sure, ask a question or try to find a relevant policy.  And remember, since this claims to be a medical (well, psychological) treatment, WP:MEDRS applies - any claims of efficacy must be backed by a source a doctor (or grad student) would consider reliable.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for those encouraging words WLU (indeed the RMT page was like a war zone for a while there in late 2007, and I had to pull back and take some time to recover!) I will take your suggestions on board, and do some further work on the Somatic Psychology page in the future. Certainly there is a lack of verification in many of the statements being made, and it gets used as a vehicle for practitioners advertising their services. It sounds like the editors you have suggested will be good to know when I get into trouble. MatthewTStone (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also far easier for me to give advice and suggestions than it is to address the real meat of the problem, and I'm here pretty regularly. Please feel free to ask if you are unsure of something, I'll do my best to be helpful (as long as it's not "please fix this mess"!)  You may also want to consider formal adoption if you expect to be here more often and want to steepen your learning curve.
 * Something else to consider is a read-through of WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAP - if people are using the page to advertise or promote the therapy, they're breaking one of our rules.
 * As for RMT, one of the main POV-pushing editors on the page, User:ResearchEditor (AKA Abuse Truth and Abuset), has been blocked for a month for sockpuppeting. User:Jack-A-Roe occupies much the same role of "skeptical of skepticism" but is very resonable and an editor I frequently disagree with but respect.  He'll work towards a version that deals with both sides of an issue fairly while being true to reliable sources.  User:DreamGuy has also been active on that page in the past, and his approach is far more one-sided and adversarial, but if you agree with him, he's good to work with.  If you don't, then that's another matter.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagavan
Please see my post on the talk page. I will get back to this article later. I remowed the reference to Swedish PDF because it is unwikilike in all respects (as I tried to indicate in my edit summary legend).

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry this whole Court's Encounter section is just opinion and speculation. I don't know why there is a non-English reference on this page. If it's relevant why can't a translation be provided MatthewTStone (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why there is a reference in Swedish. It's completely irrelevant, and that's why I won't provide a translation. I'll get back to the article and provide an appropriate reference.
 * Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Out it goes then MatthewTStone (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)