User talk:MoodyGroove/Archive 1

WikiProject Medicine
I noted you edited medical articles: you might be interested in WikiProject Medicine, a collaborative effort of Wikipedians to improve articles related to medicine? No medical expertise required!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
You're doing great. Most things can be learned from reading articles and just being BOLD (and we don't bite newcomers!). If you need help, you can always ask a participant or the talk page of the Medicine WikiProject. Or you can type on your talk page, and a friedly Wikipedian will come along and answer your question.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: you can also ask me, but as you probably have noticed, I'm on study break.


 * With pleasure! +40 is the number of bites that the article has changed. You can use them to get a quick idea of the nature of the change, for example if someone didn't fill in an edit summary. It's very useful especially if you have a large watchlist where lot's of anonymous IPs edit: most are actually useful, but when it says -2000, they've probably blanked half the page and you better go revert them :-D.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even simpler: use the "move" button on the top of the page, next to history?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation request in Reperfusion for Myocardial infarction
I filled in the citation as you suggested on the article's talk page, please check the page's history (using the "compare" function) to check what I've done.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tachycardia
I took the liberty of separating out Ventricular tachycardia into a separate article. Better to do it early than try to cram all the different types of tachycardia into a single article. Ksheka 12:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on AMI
Could you support or oppose?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Steven, right now I see both sides of the argument. I'd also rather have one great article than several mediocre ones. I'm a little concerned at what's going to happen when it comes time to chop this article into pieces. Just look how controversial it's been already. In principle, I support the idea of ACS being the portal to the discussion about atherosclerosis, plaque rupture, thrombogensis, ischemia, and clinical manifestations. But I'm starting to have some concerns. MoodyGroove 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

License tagging for Image:Townseal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Townseal.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cardioversion
No, problem MoodyGroove. Thanks for adding to the article - it doesn't seem like there are very many editors with an interest and knowledge of the subject, so it's great you're here. If the right sources can be found, it would be cool to add a history section: the development of the method/equipment must be really interesting, and it's still changing: the last few times I've been cardioverted it was much more pleasant than the first few (fewer joules needed). Cheers, Doctormatt 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Hhifr.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Hhifr.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DBS
Hi, MoodyGroove - welcome! I just wanted to drop you a note about your addition of neuropace.com to Deep brain stimulation -- I removed it as it's a commercial link - have a look at WP:EL and WP:NOT. Welcome again to Wiki - I see you're making lots of good additions! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice
Thank you for the helpful edit. I was unaware of that case, but I am not a med mal attorney. It's an interesting point.Jance 04:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. MoodyGroove 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Request for assistance
I think that QRS complex should be deleted as an independent article and QRS complex should redirect to Electrocardiogram. I've looked at WP:DP and WP:GD, and I'm a bit confused because I'm still relatively new and I don't have much experience with anything but editing content. Is it okay to ask for help in this manner? Respectfully, MoodyGroove 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Yes, this is one way to get help. You may want to read WP:MERGE. Xiner (talk, email) 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to be bold and merge QRS complex with Electrocardiogram and even tried 2-3 times to leave a redirect, but for some reason the old QRS complex page still appears and I am not automatically redirected to Electrocardiogram when I test it out. What am I doing wrong? MoodyGroove 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * It seems to be working now. Xiner (talk, email) 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does! Thanks, Xiner. MoodyGroove 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Thanks
Yeah I seemed to remember it couldn't be done. Do you think that's what that user is doing in the David_E._Johnson article then? Raystorm 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, it can be done. But it's frowned upon. There's no way to know if it's happening in the David E. Johnson article, and I wouldn't want to speculate. I don't even know the man. MoodyGroove 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Images
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

The USARTF article
I'm still doing some research on the notability factor for what you provided. Under the circumstances, I'm inclined here to ignore all of the rules if this comes up in the future, but it's hard to reconcile for the same reason that any individual fire company, police department's precinct, RACES group, American Red Cross chapter, et cetera, aren't inherently notable. Granted, you were one of the first into NOLA after the fallout from H. Katrina, which alone doesn't make you notable, but what I'm thinking of is something that makes it notable - any news articles that actually mention your group by its name? That will be a winner, especially if you can get it from the so-called usual suspects.

Given circumstances, I'm probably going to abstain from a future vote unless you can dig something better up.

As far as any sort of added life span, it's hard to say. The rules, as it were, note that you shouldn't nominate more frequently than once per month if there's no consensus, so I for one am not going to renom the article.

Hope this provides some insight. --Dennisthe2 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice
The POV tag was placed by a blogger at 'Overlawyered' and 'Point of Law', both rabid pro-tort reform websites. In fact, the article "Medical Malpractice" was originally written as a tort reform rant, and had almost nothing to do with medical malpractice, and was nothing but a rant on medmal lawyers and tort law. I corrected the elements of the claim of med mal (which were incorrect), and added correct information on expert testimony (which was also incorrect). This is not debatable, it is law in the US. The statistics on medical error and malpractice are debatable, but since they come from the medical community, are not likely biased against doctors. This editor now has tried to smear me and expose my and my husband's real identities on WIkipedia. It is nearly beyond belief.Jance 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to pop over to the category page or talk page and explain what that category means. I can't tell, so I don't know what pages to add to it. *Mishatx* - In \ Out   21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let that user know instead. I added the category page as a courtesy since there were so many pages in the category.   *Mishatx* -  In \ Out   23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cardiac pacemaker history

 * Hi MG. It is probably best for our discussion for the time being to be on our talk pages  so as to avoid clutter of the Article's discussion page. Re your last posting on the latter: To clarify the terminology, "RF" coupling & "Telemetry". Both, in essence, are RF; to my memory the Medtronic innovation worked at about 100 kHz. I have emailed Medtronic's PR people seeking clarification of year, model designations & images of data sheets of the time.  "Telemetry" usually is 2 way & usually reqires microwave communication, several mHz upwards. Almost certainly Pacesetter/John Hopkins was the first with 2 way telemetry, but I like to do things one at a time so shall wait to hear (if I do !) from Medtronic. What has been referenced so far in Discussion re Pacesetter looks OK to me except the date.


 * Re the "others who contributed": This could be a big bag of worms. I know most of the names which come from a publication by Greatbatch; excepting the names Villifana & Adducci. Villifana is unreferenced and the Anthony Adducci article is maybe a self promo. Best to stay away from that section for the time being. All the bestGeoffrey Wickham 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No answer received from Medtronic. Their site http://www.medtronic.com/brady/patient/pacemaker_history.html contains "First Programmable Pacemaker. With the introduction of programmable pacemakers in the mid 70's, settings could be programmed using radio frequency signals". The statement "mid 70's" is vague, also as this is a primary source it cannot be cited but it does tend to support my memory of Medtronic preceeding Pacesetter Systems in use of RF coupled programming.Geoffrey Wickham 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again MG. Would you be so kind as to insert references to the section "Lidwell" of "artificial pacemaker" "history" which I modified today as 58.170.253.47 (forgot to sign-in) and I still keep on making a mess when trying to insert references.

References are: Mond H G, Sloman J G, Edwards R H, "The First Pacemaker" Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol 5, March-April 1982, pp 278-282  (and) Lidwell M C, "Cardiac Disease in Relation to Anaesthesia" in Transactions of the Third Session, Australasian Medical Congress, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 2-7 1929, p 160. If you would like to see copies of the 2 sources I can send them as email attachments; would just need your email address. I'm still searching for verifiable info on the "first" of RF programming. All the best. Geoff Geoffrey Wickham 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. MoodyGroove 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Hi again MG. Thanks for improving my edit of the introductory section. I've today added comment re the hiatus in publications in the 1930's, but have my usual problem with citing a reference. The ref is [4] Mond et al. If you are happy with what I added would you be so kind as to properly format the ref. Modify my text if you wish.  I keep working in the sandbox to try and work out the way to format refs. Cheers Geoffrey Wickham 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. MoodyGroove 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove ::We must both have the same biorhythm on opposite sides of the Pacific !Geoffrey Wickham 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction
Hi! Myocardial infarction, to which you contributed a lot, is now a featured article candidate! Cheers, WS 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shocking asystole
I finally authenticated my e-mail address, but I'm still not sure how to e-mail you directly. You wrote in my Talk page some time ago about the question of shocking asystole:

Regarding the practice of shocking asystole in case it is actually very fine VF, may I please know what evidence you're referring to? All sources I've read suggest it's more myth (that VF can be isoelectric to the point of looking like aystole) than reality. The likelihood of shocking fine VF into something other than asystole is already low (hence the new emphasis on CPR prior to defib with down times > 4 minutes when no CPR has been performed prior to EMS arrival). If anything, I would think that shocking asystole would be a Class III intervention because it stuns the myocardium and delays CPR.

I have a pretty long history with this question. I wrote a critique of the prohibiton on shocking asystole for Currents in ECC back in 1994. It was initially accepted for publication, then pulled when the ECC Committee member charged with writing a reply responded with a vitriolic personal attack that was deemed unsuitable for publication. I eventually got it published as a letter to the editor in American Journal of Emergency Medicine: Stewart JA. Questions remain about shocking asystole. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(3):337-338. A co-author and I did an "evidence-based worksheet" for Guidelines 2000, but as far as I can tell, it was completely ignored. I have most of the content posted as a web page (http://www.defib.net/asyswk.htm), with a link to the actual Word document.

In both the letter and the worksheet, I challenged the myocardial stunning or "parasympathetic storm" argument on which the original 1992 Guidelines position was based. I've never received a counterargument or acknowledgment from anyone in the AHA, but the original argument appears to have been abandoned--and I like to think I had a hand in that. Between 2000 and the 2005 Guidelines AHA materials continued to refer to the myocardial stunning argument without any supporting references, and Guidelines 2005 just say that it is ineffective and you shouldn't stop CPR to try it.

I think it's a bit peculiar for the guidelines to rule something out for lack of proven effectiveness. After all, most of ACLS-- including all the drugs--lacks such proof; the guidelines actually acknowledge this in various places. The two references cited in Guidelines 2005 to show ineffectiveness are very weak: one is a pediatric study in which most of the victims were less than one year old!

As I say, the prohibition is now based on avoiding pauses in CPR for ineffective treatments--but that's pretty lame, especially if you use a manual defibrillator. It takes less time to deliver a shock with a manual defib than it takes to give two MTM ventilations, which the 2005 Guidelines acknowledge are probably unnecessary in the first few minutes of non-asphyxial arrests. If there's any reasonable chance that a shock will be effective (and I think there is, or at least it's an open question), it doesn't make sense to me to be so worried about a short pause in compressions: if the victim is truly asystolic, s/he's essentially dead anyway.

That fine VF or even coarse VF can "masquerade" as asystole is not a myth: see the case reports cited in the worksheet, particularly the one by my co-author Dr. Amaya. I think the case reports clearly show that it can happen, though with unknown frequency. AHA materials recommend checking a second lead to rule out VF, but this is impossible when using an AED and dual-function pads. With a manual defibrillator and dual-function pads you can attach the chest leads, but this requires a significant delay. Why not just give one empiric shock?

I look forward to your reply. It's good to "talk" with someone who is interested in and knowledgeable about these issues. Feel free to e-mail me at jastewart2@comcast.net.

Best, texasex 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrhythmia Alliance
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I agree with you. I described my reinstatement of the link on Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as "not spam" because I have no connection with the organization. It was indeed spam when originally added, but it is not spam when I add it! As for whether it's a useful link - I felt (and still feel) that it does add something useful. Gnusmas 10:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation
Thanks for your support on the new article. I've updated those couple of bits you asked about. Sorry about the Medulla Oblongata comment, I was trying to simplify, but I've added a more anatomically correct descriptor - i hope, please check if you get a chance.

In terms of AICD vs. ICD i still support AICD as the right terminology (although i've added ICD as well) because it follows the format of the others (AED, Manual, Semi-Auto etc.), it would seem strange to make this the only one without a prefix describing method of operation. AICD is the standard term here in the UK, probably for this reason - hope that's ok with you?

The trivia stuff may not add much, but i'm sure if we get rid of it, it'll just creep back in with new editors, so we're as well to keep it in a well written format.

Thanks again, love to hear any other comments you have. Regards Owain.davies 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All excellent points - i've put (most) of that definition in to my sandbox version and tidied up the bit about the natural pacemaking (probably right about the medulla - still comes up every time i have an exam on causes of arrhythmia though...)  As for AICD/ICD, i've just made it so that both have weighting in the article - everybody happy! (hopefully).  Thanks again for your input.  Owain.davies 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Electrocardiogram
Please see Talk:Electrocardiogram/Comments for the information you requested. I think that the article is substantially sound, but may (I'm not expert enough to know) benefit from following some of the suggestions there. John Carter 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation edits
Excellent edits, article is looking really good! Just the one bit that i put back in, in the intro, and that's partly to avoid the use of American English (as a personal policy i prefer to use undisputed international English terms whereever possible, as it makes everybody happy!) and i also think that normal sinus rhythm deserves a mention! Owain.davies 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RE Project For a New American Century
You removed a large amount of text, some which was sourced, and some not so well sourced. Instead of attempting to improve on the text(not mine, as a matter of fact) you simply removed entire sections. I have worked on, for example one of the first sections which you had a legitimate concern about - that it gave a single POV - I attempted to introduce two views, instead of simply removing the controversy.. take a look. --Boscobiscotti 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * responded to your comment on my talk page. lets work deliberately through the article to make it better sourced, and less POV, while retaining the details.--Boscobiscotti 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one am watching the article carefully. It is quite within the realm of possibility that there is a coverup about 9/11 and that PNAC members were involved in permitting and possibly instigating 9/11. That is common knowledge all over the net even though the corporate media is afraid to talk about it. What I want to know is whether the Zionist members of PNAC were used by the oil members of PNAC, or if it was the other way around, or if it was mutual. bgamall

Electrocardiography article
The reason the svg image was changed back to jpg is because there was an error in the svg image. Please see and Depolarisation wavefront and positive electrode diagram at Talk:Electrocardiogram. Changing back for now. Best, MoodyGroove 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * OK. I ought to be able to fix the SVG shortly. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Could you leave a little more border around the edges so the image is more landscape instead of portrait? Or even square? Best, MoodyGroove 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * How does it look now? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better! Thank you. MoodyGroove 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Any time. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Link Problems
Hi MG. The URL for ref 1 (McWilliam) is http://www.hrsonline.org/News/ep-history/timeline/1800s.cfm#elec. The refs 2 (Hyman) and 5 (Welti) fall within the section 'notable figures' however when going to this section there is a message " Inactive content. The page is in the process of being created or has temporarily been inactivated". If one were to assume that the page will be reactivated (no reason why it won't, it's too important)it's reasonable to insert the URL http://www.hrsonline.org/News/ep-history/notable-figures/index.cfm. Regards Geoffrey Wickham 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first one has been repaired. Let's give the second one a few days and see if they fix the link. Best, MoodyGroove 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Hi again MG. I've tried again to insert ref 4 (Mond) to the section 'Hyman pacemaker' by editing

Left bullet ref name="Mond_1982"/right bullet. (left bullet is <, right bullet is >) but ref 3 shows when I go to Show preview. Any clues on what I'm doing wrongly? There is another good reference to Hymans pacemaker including photos, illustrations & ECG tracings at http://www.sahha.gov.mt/pages.aspx?page=665. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geoffrey Wickham (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC). (dial up dropped-out during editingGeoffrey Wickham 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Sourcewatch
We don't require that either our sources or our external links follow NPOV. Only our articles need to. In fact, WP:EL encourages inclusion of external links that represent the range of views on a topic. Now, if there is no further information in a linked page than is already in the article then it serves no purpose. That was not the reason given for deletion. Instead, a user has been on an apparent campaign to remove every link to several webpages on account of "POV pushing". That is an inappropriate reason to delete links. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to delete the profile link from the Strauss article because it doesn't provide additional information then I won't object. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mansfield
Hi, in the article he defends Straussians from the accusation that they are all conservative, stating that there are conservative Straussians and liberal Straussians. That's what I meant by affectionate. Though he doesn't claim to be a Straussian explicitly in the article, I'm almost positive he does elsewhere, perhaps in the NPR interview a couple of years back. I reverted your edit because it seemed a little oversensitive to the critics of Straussianism. While "Straussian" can be used as an epithet, it need not be so any more than "liberal" or "Marxist." More importantly, I can't imagine Mansfield himself objecting to the label. Regards --Beaker342 21:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A google search of Mansfield and Straussian returns a Washington Post article where he is called the "Dean" of the Straussians. While it's not proof positive, it's a step in the right direction.--Beaker342 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly attached to the label per se, I just don't think it does any injustice to Mansfield to call him a Straussian. Now that I look further, I can't find what I had thought would be easy to find. If this had come up a year ago, maybe I would have been able to remember the source, if it exists at all. What if we cite the washingtonpost piece and say he has been called the dean of the Straussians? I'm with you 100% on the conspiracy nonsense. --Beaker342 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like where you have taken the article, but I wonder if there is a meaningfuld difference between "Straussian" and "follower of Strauss"? Is there a meaningful difference between "Kantian" and "follower of Kant"? "Platonist" and "follower of Plato"? --Beaker342 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish
As it happens, even as I disagreed rather strongly with Armed's suggestions about how we ought to deal suicidial individuals, I saw nothing problematic about the fashion in which he supported WP:SUICIDE, and surely nothing to suggest him to be irresponsible or untrustworthy, and in fact I find nothing substantial to suggest that Armed should not be sysopped, and it is exceedingly likely that I will support his RfA. I meant in my comment only to suggest that Moreschi's position wasn't entirely untenable and that it is probably not entirely unreasonable to suggest that certain policy suggestions an individual advances might speak so poorly to his judgment as to disqualify him from adminship, notwithstanding that his conduct (as against his thinking) might be altogeter fine (even as I cannot conceive of any such advancement that would bother me), but I see that I appear to have implied that I concur in, rather than simply understand, Moreschi's point. Many thanks for offering me the chance to clarify my comments. :) Cheers, Joe 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Hhifr emblem patch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hhifr emblem patch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External wikis
Related to your comments/questions on my talk page, the "proposed policy" that would encourage linking to wikis I mentioned was Linking to other wikis, which didn't go anywhere as it majorly contradicted current External links policy. It might be better described as an essay or something, though I'm sure the person writing it wanted it to take precedence over the EL rules it didn't get anywhere near far enough to be called a proposed policy I guess.

In general I think most wikis should not be linked to, as they are the perfect example of things that should not be linked to per the anything that isn't any better than what the Wikipedia article would/should become clause. Each of these things is just trying to compete with Wikipedia and get us to advertise them for free. They don't want to play by Wikipedia rules but want Wikipedia to endorse them. That's nuts. DreamGuy 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More Strauss
Thanks for cleaning up my mistake on the Strauss page. I'll turn your attention to an NPR show a couple years back on Leo Strauss. Xenos, Norton, and Kristol are the guests, and there Kristol identifies himself (and Mansfield) as "quote, Straussians" (with scare quotes). It's around the 16 minute mark. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4125689 Cheers, --Beaker342 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Kristol's joke about being a cheerful member of the Straussian cabal qualifies as a denial. If Krsitol was really concerned about the Strauss association, certainly he would have refuted it then and there as pure nonsense. No? --Beaker342 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... noble lie...
The idea of Strauss is that the noble lie is applicable to American politics; I don't know where you got the idea that Power of Nightmares isn't a reliable source to establish that, but it's quoted elsewhere in the Wikipedia, and I don't think you can really sustain the view you espouse in your edit summary.WolfKeeper 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Plato's noble lie
The Power of Nightmares is most certainly not a reliable, NPOV source on Strauss or neoconservatism. It would be no different than using Fahrenheit 9/11 as a source. The fact that you can find poorly sourced material elsewhere on the Wikipedia is quite beside the point. Your original alteration to the comment made it read like this: "Some observers name political philosopher Leo Strauss as a major intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism. For example, some of his ideas, such as the desirability of 'the noble lie' in American society." It's quite obvious that you have never read Strauss, or you would have never written anything like that, since his analysis of Plato is hardly an endorsement of the noble lie for American society. That's just a hateful comment from ignorant people who hate Bush and the War in Iraq. Your revised version: "Michael Lind has stated that for "the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a “noble lie.”" is a huge improvement, but it belongs in the criticism section. MoodyGroove 10:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * No, it is a reliable source, since it contains footage of real people saying real things, and that they said what they said is verifiable. Fahrenheit 9/11 was by an author known to deliberately misrepresent, I find your attempted proof that it isn't by analogy with a completely different work by a completely different author to be both facile, illogical and trivially wrong. To my knowledge nobody has shown any evidence of any major factual or misrepresentations or inaccuracies in this piece.WolfKeeper 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My questions
I was just asking for a Yes or No and next time could you please ask on my talk page,Thank you--Arnon Chaffin (Talk ) 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You will find my reply in your editor review. Best, MoodyGroove 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove