User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Feb

Waldorf
Hi! You asked me to let you know if a discussion about editing behavior at the Waldorf education article happened. Well, there is now a thread at ANI, to which I have just contributed. Alexbrn talk 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for notifying me exactly as I had requested, I will respond today. Cheers!    14:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Commented there, Alex.   20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool - it's good to have an "outsider's" input ;-) I shall follow the discussions with interest ... 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

your blanket reversion of 5 edits with no discussion and bizarre assertion of including unsourced material
Zad, you left a message on my talk page asserting that I had included unsourced material and your opinion that I may be blocked just after you reverted 5 edits with no discussion from the article on Male Circumcision. Please explain your actions and your statements.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tumadoireacht, your edit: removed "after inspection" but inspection is required; changed "separated" to "cut" which is simply not true, the separation is done with a blunt instrument; changed "foreskin is removed" to "foreskin is cut off" which isn't true in the case of a Plastibell circumcision (one of the most common types), in which the Plastibell clamps around and causes the foreskin to necrose and separate, which is why the more general "removed" is more accurate than "cut off"; added a duplicate mention in paragraph 2 of the lead that it may be "undertaken for aesthetic, religious, or cultural" reasons, and this information is already in paragraph 3. Please stop changing article content away from what sources say.  If you'd like to discuss further you should start a new discussion topic at the article Talk page.   17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Debate moved here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&action=edit&section=7 per your request. Perhaps you can also confine your further opinions on the subject  to that location also rather than at 3 locations --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to confine all article content-related discussion to the article Talk page if you will do so as well. I've provided a reply there.    03:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-RS source?
Springer is a reliable publishing firm, the author has the qualifications you would hope for his chapter in the book. What makes it non-RS? Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Doug, your initial instincts are good here: DeMeo holds a PhD, and Springer is a very well-respected publisher for many things, but we have to look a little deeper. Regarding the publisher, every time I step into my local university's medical library and look down the stacks, I absolutely do see lots and lots of Springer's familiar dark blue bindings and horse heads.  But not everything they publish is WP:RS, and you prove this to yourself:  Take a look at the WP:MEDRS guideline, conference abstracts like this one are generally not peer-reviewed and so are specifically called out as unreliable by this Wikipedia guideline, and that's true even though many conference abstracts (including the one DeMeo is published in) are published by Springer or other equally reputable publishers.  Also, consider who is responsible for the conference, it's an activist organization, and as such wouldn't be expected to uphold a reputation for having their publications fact-checked by an impartial organization.  Would we want to use the non-peer reviewed conference proceedings of, let's say, an organization that promotes the idea that thiomersal causes autism to source an article on the history of autism, after that theory has been conclusively disproven? Regarding DeMeo, he does appear to have a PhD, but... well, check out his "Orgone Lab" site.  Have you heard of orgone?  It's pretty whack-a-doodle...  Also see this Quackwatch write-up which mentions DeMeo and his mentor Reich by name for more background.  So I'd disagree he's an ideal resource for this.  The existing source used in the article was several orders of magnitude more reliable than DeMeo, so adding it wasn't an improvement, in my view.  Do you need sources about the history of circumcision?  Let me know what you might need and I can try to help out. Thanks for the follow-up, and I hope I didn't step on your toes here.  Let me know if you have any more questions.  Cheers!...   15:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked that out already. I was uneasy, but seems similar to using Barry Fell - you might use Fell for marine biology, but not for Ogham or archaeology. Look at the contents: and the chapter by deMeo is referred to by other RS. . Doyle might be more reliable, but why? Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * By mentioning Fell you're actually providing a good argument not to use DeMeo. The differences here are that Fell's training, expertise and most-respected professional output was in the field invertebrate zoology, he was associated with the world's most prestigious institutions in that field, and his works in that field we'd both expect to be reliable sources for article content related to invertebrate zoology.  Fell's works on epigraphy were not well-received by academia (as his article states) and so we shouldn't use his works in that field for sourcing content in that area.  DeMeo's PhD was something to do with environmental science (I haven't found a source stating exactly) and not anthropology or anything like it, and his current professional output has been in the field of orgone research.  We might expect DeMeo's orgone work to be useful for content relating to orgone and I can see DeMeo is indeed cited at orgone.  It is DeMeo's interest in the history and anthropology of sexual modification and mutilation that parallels Fell's work in epigraphy and likewise shouldn't be used. I did research whether DeMeo is well-cited by RS's, and he does not appear to be.  For example, neither Gollaher's 2001 book nor Alanis's 2004 article nor Doyle's 2005 article cite DeMeo at all.  DeMeo is nearly only ever cited by other activists and their organizations.  As we already have a balance of good, reputable, much less partisan sourcing, what would be the benefit of going down the path of starting to cite questionable sources from those heavily involved in activism, either anti- or pro- (plenty of similar partisan sources for both), in the article?    17:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer: "Doyle might be more reliable, but why?" -- Doyle's article was published in a highly respected, MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed medical journal.  DeMeo's work is essentially WP:SELFPUBLISHed.  Two entirely different categories of source.    17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, looking again it is activists who are citing him. I still wish we had something more though on this specific issue. There must be something by a reputable historian or archaeologist. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great... let me know if I can help locate sources for you for anything in this topic area. Cheers!...   03:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone told you
where you should or should not spend time editing on Wikipedia? Would you take kindly to that kind of suggestion? Alatari (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If my suggestion to you was misguided or gave offense, I'll strike it out, sorry about that. Maybe I didn't express myself well, but I was just trying to say I'm familiar with the WP:MEDRS guidelines and the general community consensus of how they should be applied, and can see where this is going to go.  But if you'd like to pursue it still, of course you can go ahead with it.    21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm setting my odds at any successful change to either article at 12:1. Yes, I do need to go back and spend more time on Black History Month articles.  I had seen this report about the glucose levels almost 2 years and thought since I was spending so much time editing Wikipeia this month, and enough time had gone by to allow for the sources to age nicely, that I would attempt to deal with the glucose/waistline information.  Nice meeting you!  Thanks for the drink. Alatari (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I reviewed some talk history and noticed that this Aspartame controversy has gotten almost as heated as it possibly can and didn't mean to rub folks the wrong way.  Alatari (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:1! For or against? :)  Nice meeting you too!  And yea, that article's Talk page has been quite a snake pit in recent months.  But if you want to see something really interesting, check out:  Database_reports/Talk_pages_by_size.  Believe it or not that Aspartame Talk page isn't even in the top 100.  I'm always amazed at how much people can argue, and what things they argue about.  If you really want to have your mind blown, read through the archives at Talk:Monty_Hall_problem.  It's a mathematical problem with a single, concrete, proven answer.  What's there to argue about?  Have a read!    04:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A question about AAP Technical Report and Circumcision article
The Technical Report (2012) from the American Academy of Pediatrics is quite rightly cited most frequently as a source in Wikipedia's article on circumcision. What makes the TR stand out is the objective guideline it applied to the determination of what studies and meta-analyses to choose out of a sea of 1000+ papers on the topic.

At the same time I note that the Circumcision article here refers to sources not cited in the AAP's TR. I do not consider this problematic in and of itself: a Wikipedia article has its own guidelines to follow. However, I am curious whether you can specify a criterion, or set of criterions, for when to include studies that did not make it into the AAP TR.

Your answer may be helpful to the editors of other language Wikipedias who set out to improve their own articles on circumcision. Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer! --79.243.67.196 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, and I did want to thank you for your participation. Regarding sources, well, the AAP can be a secondary source and WP cannot, WP is a tertiary source and we use secondary sources and some tertiary sources.  The AAP made use of lots of primary sources and we don't do that.  We also use textbooks (tertiary sources) and things like history books that the AAP isn't going to use, as the WP article's scope is much broader and the AAP's TR is much narrower but deeper.  I do the best job I can to review the secondary sources and pick quality ones, based on the WP:MEDRS guidelines.  I also will use articles I can actually get more than the ones I can't, so Pub Med Central articles (free full text) are more likely to at least get looked at.  What particular sources were you talking about?  I'm curious...   04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
a barnstar from Doc James dated 15:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
 * Thanks!! It was a long hard road but delighted with the result!    15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
a barnstar from Khazar2 dated 18:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
 * Thanks!! I had no idea that project was even watching it!    18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver again.
Hi Zad. I have a problem. You've seen the couple of sentences I added to the alternative medicine section regarding method of consumption and production. Its pretty basic stuff really. I added them in good faith to try and fill a fairly obvious deficiency in the alt medicine section. You requested citations. I doubt they are really necessary but I don't really object to that request and I'll look for something suitable. However Desoto has not just made amendments or suggestions, he has REMOVED the 2 sentences IN THEIR ENTIRETY until sources are provided. This seems to me to be little more than a desire to make life as difficult as possible for another editor. Do I really need to provide sources for the the claim that colloidal silver is 'consumed orally'? Is there really any doubt that it is made at home using electrolysis? (There is actually no other method for home production). Are the statements so controversial as to require immediate removal? Isn't their some wiki guideline that says 'dont be a dick'. Who's being the dick here?Blakebeau (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Blake... sorry to hear you're upset. There actually is such a thing:  "Don't be a dick!"    It's possible you've gotten caught in the crossfire at the article Talk page.  There's been some serious POV-pushing going on and I think several of the regular medical editors are tired of it, and have basically drawn a line that says, "Everything in this article must be sourced to excellent reliable sources, no exceptions."  From Wikipedia's point of view, there's nothing wrong or against policy with this view.  The verifiability policy says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material".  Even the most obvious "the sky is blue" statement requires a cite once it's been challenged, and per WP:BURDEN (also policy) it is up to you to provide the source, not the other editor.  Please do not feel singled out, this is very typical for contentious medical articles.  My advice:
 * Try not to take content issues personally. Sometimes you may be on the receiving end of someone else's sharp mood because of something someone else did.
 * Use excellent-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for everything, no matter how seemingly trivial or obvious. The reaction "But it's so obvious!" will always draw the response, "If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to find a source for it."  Find the source first before adding the content.  If you can't find the source, wait until you can find one.
 * Use the Talk page to propose possibly contentious content. You're much more likely to get a sympathetic hearing for your content if you bring it up in a discussion on the Talk page first.  If you try to put it in the article first, it's likely to get reverted and will probably prejudice the reverter against the content, and you'll have to be discussing it on the Talk page with that editor anyway.
 * Hope this advice helps...  04:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. This is a good article, you should read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLUE Blakebeau (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I picked the example "the sky is blue" specifically because of that essay "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" and also its counterargument, "You do need to cite that the sky is blue". What breaks the tie?  WP:V, as mentioned above:  any statement (no matter how obvious), once challenged, requires a cite to a reliable source, and that's policy.    13:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In recognition of your tireless work…
…on Circumcision where you review every edit for accuracy, impartiality, and accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline, I wanted to say "Thank you, and keep up the good work"

a barnstar from Avi dated 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
 * I am honored!! Thank you Avi, as thanks are due to you as well!  Cheers!!    21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

megadosage of vitamin C
71.178.188.47 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reflist
Thanks for adding the reflist. It wil make it a lot clearer when reviewing the citations. Always welcome to jump into the hornets nest at the page as well. Fresh eyes never hurts! Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision for manual and manipulative therapy
removed large article-specific content proposal which is duplicated at the article Talk page, where it should be...
 * Your comments, criticisms would be appreciated. Should this be discussed at WP:MED?  Regards, DVMt (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, I'll get around to looking and commenting as soon as I can.   15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry for posting the article specific content here.  I should have done this .  Regards. DVMt (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting
Reverting edits that are being discussed on the talk page without contributing anything to the discussion doesn't really help move an article forward, it also doesn't allow people to consider the changes in anything other than knee-jerk ways. Please consider allowing discussions and suggestions to remain for long enough for others to see them before you revert. Thanks Tilapidated (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On a highly-watched, contentious, featured article your best approach would be to build consensus for significant changes like you are proposing on the Talk page before making additions to the article body, and then the very last thing you'd do is update the lead to match the body.   02:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean. The body already references natural water fluoridation, already quotes articles and public health sources that use the definitions I'm proposing, and the only person on the talk page objecting agreed with it as a possible way forward. Please join the conversation on the talk page and contribute to the discussion so that people can understand your point of view - it's hard to reach consensus if changes are not allowed to stand for more than 7 minutes to allow others to consider them. Tilapidated (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm already at the article Talk page, perhaps I missed the updates since I last read the article. Let's continue our discussion at the article Talk page.    02:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
I just saw it - thanks for your advice, you're absolutely right. ;)

I do have some concerns however about a culture of 'revert any changes' that appears prevalent on that page, and hope you will take a serious look at some of the issues around the large scale reviews of studies, almost all of which are critical of the quality of the research and come out with some fairly timid conclusions. I do hope that you're able to view this as a commitment to the actual science of the issues, even if if there is pressure to fall in behind the political lines that are sometimes drawn between different interest groups around this. The frustrating thing is that the politics of public health often seems to get in the way of actually conducting and interpreting the best available research on these topics. We fall back onto the slogans of a movement rather than the sort of careful interpretation that we need. Thanks again, Tilapidated (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad - you get the difference between reporting ranges and drawing conclusions from them? If not, drop me a line and I'm happy to explain. Thanks. Tilapidated (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will reply at article Talk page in a little bit, I had promised to finish something else first.   03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - thanks - I have a sense that there is some misunderstanding on the page about what is being said in the study. Tilapidated (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK! (And nice job of WP:AVOIDYOU! )    03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Range of findings
So - aside from the issues of honestly reporting what studies show, one of the things I'm trying to present more clearly in that paragraph is the range of findings in reputable studies. Early studies show reductions of some 50-60%, more recent ones 18-40%, and some, like the York Review, claim it is impossible based on the evidence available, to know. The reasons for this are mixed, but it seems important to spell out that the ranges vary both over time and by geography, social policy (principally availability of affordable dental healthcare), and availability of other fluoride sources. I'm having a hard time understanding why this is something you oppose. Help me out. Tilapidated (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was pulled in a number of directions this morning. I see you've started an RFC, I have commented.    18:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - your comment makes me think we don't have a common understanding of the issue though - the idea that it is simple math to apply a multiplier to the median of the means of the results of 214 studies, and that that will give you meaningful conclusions is what is at stake. The York Review authors are very clear that they think this cannot be reliably done with their dataset, Worthington does it, presumably with his own logic. The two positions are very different, and tacking Worthington's number onto the end of the range data presented by York as if they can be connected like that is really problematic - we should report both opinions, but show that they disagree.Tilapidated (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dearchiving DRN case
The Talk:Medical uses of silver DRN case has been de-archived in order to close it. Please visit the page and state whether you will accept the proposed solution. There will be no extensive discussion. If all participants agree to it, the case will be closed as 'resolved', if not, as 'failed'. CarrieVS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)