| Revision as of 20:44, 6 February 2014 editPetrarchan47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →Accusations of POV pushing← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:44, 6 February 2014 edit undoDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →Accusations of POV pushingNext edit → | ||
| Line 353: | Line 353: | ||
| :'''DrFleischman Answer''': | :'''DrFleischman Answer''': | ||
| ::Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to most of his arguments beyond, ''"Please stop POV pushing,"'' and in the same comment you wrote, ''" "''. I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant ] seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a ]. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices): | |||
| ::{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | {{template:stop}} | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | '''Please stop accusing editors of POV pushing, and stop with the sighs and groans and statements about your fellow editors being exhausting. Stop now, stop forever. STOP.''' | |||
| |} | |||
| ::--] (]) 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please see== | ==Please see== | ||
Revision as of 21:44, 6 February 2014
"The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit." from "The Decline of Misplaced Pages"
"The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena." from Noam Chomsky
en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine
Health consequences article
As you may know I've been working on this article and Core has offered to help. I'm still in the process of gathering information...and my thoughts. I was thinking that it should have a substantial section on Corexit since every source I've read so far mentions its use as one of the important unknowns. The GAP report contains a great deal of information and looking at its wikipedia article, it should certainly be considered a good RS source. Reading the report has been on my list of things to do but right now I am going through old news reports to see if there is anything that would be good for the article. However you are very familiar with Corexit already and would perhaps be willing to work on that section? Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The request makes sense, it seems like it would be faster and easier for me to do the section, but due to some good luck, I am too busy in my offline life to make any commitments here. I can dip my toe in once and a while, but not more. However, I did all the work already, in the "Corexit for dummies" section. Don't be intimidated by the GAP report, the review article from which I quoted heavily did all the work for us (see linked section - be sure to uncollapse, especially the bottom part, which is specific to health concerns) The only thing needed is to distill the info and plug it into related articles (4 come to mind - for one of them, you will have to get a court order to add this info, and good luck finding an honest judge!).
- Maybe it makes more sense with our busy lives to work on this together and let it happen organically. petrarchan47tc 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The section move to archives, so I'll repeat it here:
Corexit
Here is most of the Corexit story. It is a pre-draft draft that needs a lot of work. None of this is in my own words, but I wanted to get this out of my files and onto this page in case someone wanted to help build this section, which probably fits better under the "Environmental record" or perhaps "Safety and health violations" than under the Gulf spill, since we are only allotted 2 paragraphs. petrarchan47tc 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):
| “ | BP's use of COREXIT during the DWH oil spill
Conclusions from the report strongly suggest that the dispersant Corexit was widely applied in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared. In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished. EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman: "EPA....is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous Corexit is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public." From the GAP report, "evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself." BP lied about the size of the oil disaster and the danger posed to its workers, the public and the environment. Lying to Congress about the amount of oil was one of 14felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with US DOJ, which included a 4.5 Billion fine, the largest ever levied against a corp in the US. BP hid the amount of oil from cameras by using oil dispersant Corexit. BP lied about how safe Corexit was for workers, residents and the environment. An anonymous whistle-blower provided evidence revealed in a Newsweek investigation that BP was warned in advance about the safety risks of Corexit. // whistleblowers revealed to the independent Government Accountability Project (GAP) that Nalco had given elaborate instructions to BP about using Corexit and avoiding contact with human clean-up workers — instructions that were clearly ignored during the spring of 2010. BP used at least 1.84 million gallons, the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil. 58% was sprayed from planes, sometimes hitting cleanup workers in the face. Workers were denied safety gear and (their jobs threatened for wearing respirators). Soon after the Deepwater explosion, BP stockpiled 1/3rd of the world's supply of Corexit In May 2010, the EPA told BP to identify less toxic alternatives from a list of government-approved dispersants. If BP could not identify an alternative, it had to offer concrete reasons why not. The company replied that less-toxic dispersants were not available in the quantities needed. BP continued spraying Corexit on the Gulf, at an average ratio of one gallon per 91 gallons of oil, into the summer of 2010. After the spill, a study revealed that oil mixed with Corexit is 52 times more toxic than oil alone. Wilma Subra, a chemist whose work on environmental pollution had won her a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation, told state and federal authorities that she was especially concerned about how dangerous the mixture of crude and Corexit was: “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory,” she told GAP investigators. “Long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.” In a survey of health impacts for people along the coast, Orr found The most common ailments were headaches (87 percent of respondents), dizziness and cough (72 percent), fatigue and eye-nose-and-throat irritation (63 percent), followed by nausea, diarrhea, confusion and depression. Environmental health consultant Wilma Subra, who evaluated the survey data, said oil and dispersant had aerosolized and travelled up to 100 miles inland, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to the hairspray-like mist. “Now we are seeing the reproductive effects,” Subra said, including high rates of miscarriages, preemies, infant respiratory problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. “The workers that BP hired should have been trained and protected adequately,” Subra said. “It was inappropriate to expose them to toxic chemicals as they did their job.” She told federal officials the workers needed respirators, but was rebuffed. “They said I would be killing the workers because of the heat,” she said. “There are suits with piped-in cooling. Cleanups happen all the time in hot weather.” NOAA scientists/divers getting very sick, told there was no danger. Gulf waters disintegrated the rubber on diving suits. "Hertsgaard goes on to explain that although BP has set aside roughly $8 billion for medical expenses related to the spill, the illnesses these people are suffering from are not covered under that settlement". The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera (base of food chain). |
” |
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/04/22/what-bp-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-spill.html Newsweek investigation/Hertsgaard
http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-lessons-bp-oil.html
http://www.fox8live.com/story/22019611/finding-oil-in-the-marsh-3-years-after-the-bp-spill
http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-oil-spill-carcinogens-idUSTRE68T6FS20100930
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working two jobs at the moment, no can do... petrarchan47tc 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Specifics from the GAP report
Select Report Findings
Existing Health Problems
- Eventually coined "BP Syndrome" or "Gulf Coast Syndrome," all GAP witnesses experienced spill-related health problems. Some of these effects include: blood in urine; heart palpitations; kidney damage; liver damage; migraines; multiple chemical sensitivity; neurological damage resulting in memory loss; rapid weight loss; respiratory system and nervous system damage; seizures; skin irritation, burning and lesions; and temporary paralysis.
- Interviewees are also extremely concerned about recognized long-term health effects from chemical exposure (from those specific chemicals found in Corexit/oil mixtures), which may not have manifested yet. These include reproductive damage (such as genetic mutations), endocrine disruption, and cancer.
- Blood test results from a majority of GAP interviewees showed alarmingly high levels of chemical exposure – to Corexit and oil – that correlated with experienced health effects. These chemicals include known carcinogens.
The Failure to Protect Cleanup Workers
- Contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual, BP and the government misrepresented known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity.
- Despite the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed a highly-lauded safety training program for cleanup workers, the workers interviewed reported that they either did not receive any training or did not receive the federally required training.
- Federally required worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards (according to a confidential whistleblower) were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, as health problems began.
- A FOIA request found that government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks. Yet, divers contracted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and interviewed by GAP dove after assurances that it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary.
- BP and the federal government, through their own medical monitoring programs, each publicly denied that any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring. Of the workers GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job and blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
- BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image. The federal government permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
- All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.
Ecological Problems & Food Safety Issues
- A majority of GAP witnesses reported that they found evidence of oil or oil debris after BP and the Coast Guard announced that cleanup operations were complete.
- BP and the federal government reported that Corexit was last used in July 2010. A majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after that time.
- The oil-Corexit mixture coated the Gulf seafloor and permeated the Gulf's rich ecological web. GAP witnesses have revealed underwater footage of an oil-covered barren seafloor, documenting widespread damage to coral reefs.
- The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.
Inadequate Compensation
- BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment.
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
With only one para from and international panel of experts, the article can't give more copy to a whistle blower group. But more of this info could be used in a separate Corexit article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
BP/Gov't position, etc
"Time and again, those working to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were assured that Corexit....was as safe as "dishwasher soap"."
"In a statement issued by BP, the oil company said: "Use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was co-ordinated with and approved by federal agencies including the US Coast Guard and EPA. Based on extensive monitoring conducted by BP and the federal agencies, BP is not aware of any data showing worker or public exposures to dispersants that would pose a health or safety concern."
"According to a new report released by the Government Accountability Project, nearly half of workers reported that their employers told them Corexit did not pose a health risk."
"And nearly all those interviewed, reported receiving minimal or no protective equipment despite warnings clearly spelled out in the manual provided by Corexit's manufacturer."
"Now three years on, many cleanup workers are reporting serious health problems including seizures, temporary paralysis and memory loss."
Tar sands are not "oil sands" except per big oil PR campaigns and Misplaced Pages
Quotation from Little Black Lies, the forthcoming book by Jeff Gailus, on using the terms tar sands or oil sands...
What’s in a Name?
The oil industry and the Alberta and federal governments prefer the term “oil sands,” while most opponents use the dirtier-sounding “tar sands.” Technically, both “tar sands” and “oil sands” are inaccurate. The substance in question is actually bituminous sand, a mixture of sand, clay, water and an extremely viscous form of petroleum called bitumen, which itself contains a noxious combination of sulphur, nitrogen, salts, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. A handful of bituminous sand is the hydrocarbon equivalent of a snowball: each grain of sand is covered by a thin layer of water, all of which is enveloped in the very viscous, tar-like bitumen. In its natural state, it has the consistency of a hockey puck.
You might be forgiven for believing that the term has been foisted upon us by nasty, truth-hating environmentalists – but you’d be wrong. The term has actually been part of the oil industry lexicon for decades, used by geologists and engineers since at least 1939. According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized.
With the notable exception of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank that often collaborates with government and industry staff, critics of the way Alberta’s bitumen deposits are being developed use “tar sands,” because that is what it was called when they entered the debate. The term accentuates the obvious downsides of the endeavour – water pollution, for instance, and the decline of certain wildlife species, not to mention considerable greenhouse gas emissions and the infringement of First Nations peoples’ constitutionally protected treaty rights – but it is hardly something environmentalists concocted out of nowhere to give the contested development a bad name.
Even the Alberta Chamber of Resources, an industry lobby group, admits that the term “oil sands” gained popularity in the mid-1990s, when government and industry began an aggressive public relations campaign to improve public perception of the dirty-sounding “tar sands.” “Oil sands,” you see, conveys a certain usefulness, a natural resource that creates jobs, increases government revenues, enhances energy security and makes investors rich beyond measure. Tar, on the other hand, is dark and heavy, the kind of glop better suited to paving roads, or coating dangerous subversives before feathering and banishing them from society altogether. As any corporate communications consultant worth her $1000/day rate knows, there is nothing intrinsically correct, neutral or accurate about the term “oil sands.” Nor is it a coincidence that media coverage has favoured rich and powerful business interests. The media’s preference for “oil sands” is simply the result of the Triple Alliance’s crafty political spin and an aggressive well-funded strategy to brand bitumen development in the brightest possible light, part of a much grander battle plan that relies on a dark web of little black lies to win the day. Is it tar sands or oil sands?
(Many thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degree7 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you too. petrarchan47tc 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
NSA docs
NSA Primary Sources from EFF - list of all leaks and links to RS
"a Somalian city"
Apropos of nothing, check out this aerial view of "a Somalian city" (don't know which one), found on Wikimedia Commons:
Wow!! groupuscule (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- you're adorable. petrarchan47tc 08:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome Shuunya and (as yet unnamed)
Notes on content for later addition are here, feel free to comment and add.
Some tools to get started:
- Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches
- WP:MEDRS
- WP:V
- WP:NPOV
- WP:UNDUE
- this tool, for generating a cite journal template from a PubMed identifier.
- Comparing current version of Medical Cannabis to long-standing version (pre Project Medicine).
- Comparing current version of Cannabis (drug) to .
- Comparing current version of Effects of cannabis to .
- Comparing current version of Long-term effects of cannabis to .
- Question about MEDRS - can we use rat studies to speak to human health, such as in the quote box at Cannabis in pregnancy? (older version, new version.
- Beginning to look at impact on lungs check this change
- Deaths from cannabis? From Cannabis (drug):
- "human deaths from overdose are extremely rare".
- Danger to organs? (Medical Cannabis page)
- "A 2013 literature review said that exposure to marijuana had biologically-based physical, mental, behavioral and social health consequences and was "associated with diseases of the liver (particularly with co-existing hepatitis C), lungs, heart, and vasculature". There are insufficient data to draw strong conclusions about the safety of medical cannabis, although short-term use is associated with minor adverse effects such as dizziness. Although supporters of medical cannabis say that it is safe, petrarchan47tc 03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Deaths from cannabis? From Cannabis (drug):
Research
Notes
Sandbox - keeping notes here.
Project Medicine Cannabis discussion
- Using Cannabis in pregnancy as a guide, a statement about "association" can serve as the Intro, and rat studies are acceptable for the body as long as they are reviews. petrarchan47tc 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Wording closer to source
As it turns out, the source I was looking at for the text you amended was Niesink 2013 which says (page 7):
The few studies that exist on the effects of CBD show that this cannabinoid can counteract some of the negative effects of THC
(my emphasis)
You can't really get much closer to the source than the actual words :) Nevertheless, I think your change is perfectly reasonable and probably somewhat clarifies the meaning of what I was trying to write. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why, thank you. Here is the source from your refs for the wording I preferred (as a reader with an inquiring mind):
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- see List of Linux Mint releases. The current release is Linux Mint 16 "Petra", released on 6 December 2013. It has no significance to anything. I just ran across it do some editing and I thought I would share it with you. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's entirely significant. Somebody loves me! petrarchan47tc 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I love you too! And Buster too! But I just need a few minutes to write. Later... Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, i'll be smiling for the rest of the day... Btw, did you all see this? petrarchan47tc 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I love you too! And Buster too! But I just need a few minutes to write. Later... Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Wishing you the best year ever! |
| Dear friend, I can't imagine my wiki experience without you. I feel like we've known each other for years. Here's wishing for another year of happy editing! Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Gandy, i feel the same. Thank you for giving me yet another perma-smile. I am delighted to know it is mutual. Blessings for your '14!!! petrarchan47tc 04:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Draft input
Take a peek at this draft and treat it as your own. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, HectorMoffet, that is an unexpectedly interesting article. Good job!
- I'm dealing with some things IRL that may mean I can't participate as planned (and promised). I'll keep you posted, and hopefully can do some adding to this and future drafts. Best and thanks, petrarchan47tc 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Take a gander at Misplaced Pages talk:Surveillance awareness day/RFC. Rybec has proposed text for the RFC. If you approve of it, you could create the RFC at a neutral location like Misplaced Pages:The Day We Fight Back or Misplaced Pages:February 11, 2014 and then advertise it on WP:CENT. I'd do it myself, but I want to make crystal clear that this is not "my" proposal, given how controversial the brainstorming was. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- l'll take a look, but I don't feel like I'm the one to take it to RfC. We do have experienced people, like Guy Macon, Wnt and Jericoman, who would probably consider doing it. Do you think it would be wise to get more feedback at Jimbo's? Not that we should wait any longer, but maybe someone comfortable with RfCs will pop up. The weekend should see more activity at the talk page. The idea of being 'the one' is certainly threatening, you become a target. Not pretty. This is why I suggest a more experienced editor than I (and to be honest, it's a bit more stress than I can handle right now). ping petrarchan47tc 10:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, cool, it's already done. The present wording gives only two non-neutral choices and a 'do nothing'. I've asked Rybec to consider changing it. petrarchan47tc 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the developers for the day of protest against mass surveillance. We were hoping to at least link to some eduction portal here on Misplaced Pages about surveillance but the number of conversations going on is a bit over whelming for me to look through. Was hoping you could help me better understand the current situation. My email is thomasalwyndavis@gmail.com -- Thomasalwyndavis —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
RE: We need help!
Message added 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RFC wording?
So, Rybec reposted the rfc wording you have objected to, and then bench added to it-- I boldly removed the whole thing. Does the wording have you and rybec and others' support? I don't want to step on toes, but I want to make sure people are looking over that has the support of more than one user.--HectorMoffet (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, I had posted it with Petrarchan47's wording, or very similar. —rybec 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies Rybec-- I hope I did as you wanted overall; --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, it seems like something really should go up today if possible. I'll leave it in your hands whether to pull the trigger and use the best wording you have or not. Too high pressure a decision for me! --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hector, I think the idea is dead, and I'm not sure why. But the writing is on the wall... petrarchan47tc 21:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
moving forward
- We don't have good RFC text-- How about posting an open-ended discussion to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab) and just advertising it in Cent.
- Proposed text
- Question: "Should Misplaced Pages do something on The Day We Fight Back?"
- If nothing else, it would get a lot more eyeballs on this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's really been my point all along. If the Village pump bring lots of eyeballs, then let's do it, HectorMoffet. petrarchan47tc 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, I think "starting a discussion" issue is in better hands than mine. Best to focus on making sure we have all the articles people are going to want to read on Feb 11. To that end, would you take a peek at Draft:Stop Watching Us, Draft:Mass surveillance in North Korea, and Draft:Mass surveillance in East Germany. The last two are sort of companion articles to ones we have about the US and UK. Doesn't seem right to mention mass surveillance in X without having articles on the two regimes most famous for surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, will get to this tomorrow. I'm also thinking we could put some focus on Smith v. Maryland, the case that all mass collection depends upon. It was an OK for a search of a single person for a 4-day period. The phone data they could collect at the time in the 70's is nothing like what they can do now, of course, but this same finding was used as recently as December to justify phone metadata collection. Smith V Maryland may be fodder for an interesting "DYK". Section 215 is another important bit that may need polishing. petrarchan47tc 10:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, I think "starting a discussion" issue is in better hands than mine. Best to focus on making sure we have all the articles people are going to want to read on Feb 11. To that end, would you take a peek at Draft:Stop Watching Us, Draft:Mass surveillance in North Korea, and Draft:Mass surveillance in East Germany. The last two are sort of companion articles to ones we have about the US and UK. Doesn't seem right to mention mass surveillance in X without having articles on the two regimes most famous for surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's really been my point all along. If the Village pump bring lots of eyeballs, then let's do it, HectorMoffet. petrarchan47tc 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Smith v Maryland
Roth (from Human Rights Watch) said that from a human rights perspective, one of the biggest missteps the US administration had committed was to insist that there was a difference between the content of private communication and "metadata" – information about where, when and between whom the communication takes place. This distinction was based on a 1979 court case from the pre-digital era, which Human Rights Watch described as "troglodyte".
Roth said: "I used to be a prosecutor – I used to put pen registers on people's phones, collecting the numbers that you dial – but I had to manually compile the numbers. It was very labour intensive, and hence self-limiting. Today, the computer can piece together your entire personal life in a matter of seconds."
To assume that only the listening in, not the collection part of surveillance constituted an intrusion of privacy was "a fallacy", Roth said. "Imagine the government putting a video camera in your bedroom and saying 'don't worry, the feed will only go into a government computer, which we won't look at unless we have reason to believe that wrongdoing is taking place'. Would you feel your privacy is being respected? Of course not. But that's exactly what the government is doing."
Human Rights Watch had taken little solace from President Barack Obama's speech last Friday, Roth said. "Obama said there will be no more spying on Angela Merkel. Great! But what concerns us is the US government spying on ordinary people. He didn't say we have a right to privacy. He just said: we'll tread more carefully. What use is the government promising to restrain itself if it doesn't give anyone the chance to challenge that restraint in court?"
Secret interpretation of 'relevance'
- Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering secretly redefines "relevant" to mean, in effect, "everything"
- WH White Paper defending 'relevance'
deleting comments on this Talk page
I don't delete comments on my Talk page unless clear vandalism/repetition. If someone accuses me of, say, edit warring, I think that should be part of the public record. It doesn't mean the accusation is true. You evidently disagree and deem this page to be your territory and invitation only should you so desire. What I would like to point out, however, is that it is quite hypocritical to purge your Talk page and then make statements on mine implying that should I do likewise that would be objectionable. At one point you made an appearance just to say that another editor should be alerted that a third party (not I) had indirectly referred to her, did you not? Now why should it matter if the mention was made on a Talk page that is not public, and that I could just delete at any time at my whim? Are these User Talk pages public or not? If not, then why can't Doc and I not have a conversation without the "drama" of this sort of interruption? I raise this in order to note that perhaps the reason you so frequently edit war is because at the end of the day you're deletionist. If you wouldn't insist, for example, on deleting the material drawn from that Buzzfeed article that provided context and more fairly indicated what the Buzzfeed story meant to report, to take an example, perhaps this would stop the edit warring. Of course, there would still be the issues of you failing to engage on a point by point basis on article Talk pages, looking at what you are reverting (the latest example of many being removing "members " from the Tice article simply because *I* added the missing word), and your declining to heed what the community has advised you of.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the last time I will say this. I am not here for drama. Editors are allowed to treat their talk page as their own space, deleting as they wish, and they also have a right to request that editors leave and no longer make comments, which I have done. I highlighted that I am asking you to cease from making comments here as of last night. Please calm down. I would suggest if you have issues pertaining to the Snowden article and the Buzzfeed piece, write a very clear RfC asking the community to weigh in. I cannot deal with you, and I do think it has to do with hostility directed at me. I also think people have witnessed your hostility is directed at whistleblowers, whose pages you feel keen to edit. I think this is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, which requires that we edit with a neutral point of view. I will join you at an RfC. petrarchan47tc 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Advice moving forward
Any suggestions for which articles should be prioritized in the coming days? I have time to spend, but need suggestions on where to focus. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Global surveillance revelations' impact on journalism seems to be overlooked on Wiki thus far. You may have seen the section I added to the Wiki Project talk page with many sources for this? Wnt shared that the subject matter may better fit into existing articles. We do have the "reaction" to NSA revelations, but this article has been split and moved twice, and ignored almost entirely. It needs help from top to bottom. If you feel happy to help with this, I'll join you.
- At the same time, the articles you and Rybec have worked on are equally important, and carry a bigger world-view. So I am not sure if I'm being helpful or not ;) petrarchan47tc 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- HectorMoffet I'm also wondering about an article on this, Columbia School of Journalism is conducting a year long look at "Journalism after Snowden". Watch the video, a few times - it is a goldmine. I've seen maybe 4 RS covering this initial panel. I would think this deserves its own page, but maybe coverage belongs instead in the Snowden and "Aftermath" articles? Another thought is that from this video are at least a handful of ideas for more articles, some of those touched on here. petrarchan47tc 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a rather good review of the panel, aad a quick read. petrarchan47tc 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Another article idea is here petrarchan47tc 07:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Great idea! I've started ant article with the working title Draft:Mass surveillance and journalism, but feel free to add stuff / retitle /etc to incorporate the material above! Good Work! --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Accusations of POV pushing
This does not build trust. This sort of thing is generally considered uncivil and is counterproductive. It is part of a larger pattern. Please focus on the arguments rather than the editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I also urge you to read WP:POVEDITOR#Editor POV. In a nutshell, there's nothing wrong with an editor having a POV. If there was, there wouldn't be many editors left. The important thing is that the edits themselves be neutral. So please focus on the specific edits rather than the editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am absolutely beyond exhausted with Misplaced Pages right now after dealing first with Bdell555, whom you said brought good faith concerns that I should pay attention to, but after being asked, you were not able cite any. You instead found a heap of your own sudden problems with the article. Now it is on me, whilst in a period of needed hibernation, to take on all of your deletions one by one. Snowden's 4 Nobel nominations, the White House petition - unless I spent hours at this computer arguing with you and any buddies who might follow you around - these things won't be mentioned on Misplaced Pages. And I do think this is a continuation of a personal grief you have with me, that escalated when Sandy Georgia invited you to join her in initiating an RfC about me. It seems you were empowered at that point, and even though the community has never weighed in behind you at the Snowden page, you lack the expected degree of humility and instead seem to enjoy batting me around. I truly expected you to act with NPOV, and instead of making digs at me for claiming to be exhausted by Bdell555, that you would help. When Gandy commented that you should not just but in to stir up trouble, you then made digs about Gandy to Bdell555. This high school girl behaviour. All that I am saying can be proven by diffs, so it is silly for you to escalate this. I really wish you would leave me alone. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- "This high school girl behaviour." One more personal attack and I'll see you at ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am here to write articles, you seem keen to play games. This is very disturbing to me. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- One good essay deserves another. Please see Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faith. Challenges to Petra's ability and willingness to assume good faith are completely without reason. In my opinion she has cause to feel "batted around" by yourself and others. Threatening ANI does not promote collaboration or good will. Kindness promotes reciprosity...threats promote distance and a "turning away" from each other. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- AAGF is an essay; AGF is a behavioral guideline the community as a whole expects every editor to follow. I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do not follow Petrar's history with you and I don't plan to start. I spoke up to defend a fellow editor...and a wiki-friend. Rather than focus on the minor point of "which is a guideline and which is an essay", it would be more collaboratively-minded of you to focus on the message. I only stepped out of the crowd so that we do not lose Petrarchan's passioned editing. No need to reply. I won't respond. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is hard for me to understand the complaints when s/he sees nothing wrong with saying, "I wouldn't even bother trying to actually convince Petrarchan47 of anything. He/she is simply too stubborn and and intolerant of criticism". Petrarchan works on some very difficult articles and does a good job of it. I've worked with P for some time and I have not found him/her to be at all difficult. Gandydancer (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. There's never an excuse for making sexist personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. And I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is hard for me to understand the complaints when s/he sees nothing wrong with saying, "I wouldn't even bother trying to actually convince Petrarchan47 of anything. He/she is simply too stubborn and and intolerant of criticism". Petrarchan works on some very difficult articles and does a good job of it. I've worked with P for some time and I have not found him/her to be at all difficult. Gandydancer (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do not follow Petrar's history with you and I don't plan to start. I spoke up to defend a fellow editor...and a wiki-friend. Rather than focus on the minor point of "which is a guideline and which is an essay", it would be more collaboratively-minded of you to focus on the message. I only stepped out of the crowd so that we do not lose Petrarchan's passioned editing. No need to reply. I won't respond. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- AAGF is an essay; AGF is a behavioral guideline the community as a whole expects every editor to follow. I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- One good essay deserves another. Please see Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faith. Challenges to Petra's ability and willingness to assume good faith are completely without reason. In my opinion she has cause to feel "batted around" by yourself and others. Threatening ANI does not promote collaboration or good will. Kindness promotes reciprosity...threats promote distance and a "turning away" from each other. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am here to write articles, you seem keen to play games. This is very disturbing to me. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- "This high school girl behaviour." One more personal attack and I'll see you at ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Petrarchan, these recent tiffs aside, one of the themes that comes through in your recent dealings with Brian Dell and me is that you're tired and you're sick of dealing with editors you disagree with on a point-for-point basis. I certainly understand you being tired; I have no knowledge of (or interest in) your personal life but you've put a huge amount of time into several articles I watch and most of your work has been very beneficial to the encyclopedia. Please forgive me if I disagree on a tiny fraction of the work you've been doing. Unfortunately for you, dealing point-for-point with those you disagree with is just part-and-parcel of what Misplaced Pages is all about. If you don't want to do it then by all means, don't do it. You're under no obligation to defend your work, and there are plenty of editors who seem ready to step in and carry your torch. (Hey, it's Olympics season, I can't help it.) Just please try to keep your punches above the belt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fleischman, you stepped in to the Snowden talk page after a long time of peaceful silence from you, during which time one must assume you harbored no simmering resentments and saw no immense problems with the Snowden article. Days ago, you suddenly arrive to scold me about ignoring Bdell555's "good faith suggestions". I immediately asked you to identify for me which editing suggestions from Bdell555 were, in your opinion ,worth further consideration and could be used to benefit/modify the article.
- You have so much as admitted that indeed there was no usable content in the long, endless diatribes from Bdell555. I asked you in good faith, believing you must not have made the comment to me if you hadn't thoroughly read his contributions, as you indicated and continue to, that I was ignoring valuable work and being unfair to an editor. I am asking DIRECTLY - what is Bdell555 saying on that talk page prior to your arrival that you think should be considered further, and how can it be used to aid the article? (Space for answer is below my comment)
- Furthemore, you next joined up with him and began gossiping on his talk page. It doesn't look good when you both declare me "impossible", and knowingly collaborate with someone I have admitted - in an attempt to ask for help - has exhausted me. No other editor disagreed with my assessment, and though you seem to have, you've offered no support to back up your assessment/defense of Bdell. It seems gamey to see me in an admitted weakened state, and to use that opportunity to pounce. When I asked on your talk to drop the stick, it seems you did the exact opposite. It appears from the recent week - where you have also dropped by another article and attempted to remove a section I have written, ie, the Aaron Swartz section at The Day We Fight Back - that you are trying to exacerbate a personal vendetta with me. I am surprised you still have one, and it's now plain for all to see. This, and the gossiping with my detractor, is what I mean by "high school girl". It's gamey bullshit and I would think one would at the very least try to hide it on from their peers to protect their reputation.
- Instead, you changed the goalpost and made a visit to my talk page after being asked months ago not to drop by here anymore, seemingly to try and get another diff for you collection. You made a massive amount of deletions to the Snowden page instead of directly addressing he questions posed to you about your defense of Bdell555, leaving me, the one person working on the page regularly, to sift through your edits one by one and defend them, whist making fun of me for being too fed up for such a process, and sitting by enjoying an inevitable breakdown so you can take me to an ANI - as if I've been upsetting your editing experience on Wiki or anyone else's. On top of this, you want to be seen as some sort of arbiter of good faith and reason.
- I look forward to a clear answer below. After that, I would prefer if you would honor my request to stay off this page. Alternately, you can answer my question about Bdell555's editing suggestions where I asked it originally on the Snowden talk page. Make the suggestions from Bdell555 clear so that editors not familiar with the article can help, as I am (well done, Dr F) over it.. petrarchan47tc 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- DrFleischman Answer:
- Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " ". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices):
Please stop accusing editors of POV pushing, and stop with the sighs and groans and statements about your fellow editors being exhausting. Stop now, stop forever. STOP.
Please see
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank You. petrarchan47tc 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kochanowski, M.; Kała, M. (2005). "Tetrahydrocannabinols in clinical and forensic toxicology". Przegl Lek. 62 (6): 576–80. PMID 16225128.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep (Review). 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Washington, Tabitha A.; Brown, Khalilah M.; Fanciullo, Gilbert J. (2012). "Chapter 31: Medical Cannabis". Pain. Oxford University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-19-994274-9.
Proponents of medical cannabis site its safety, but there are clear uncertainties regarding safety, composition and dosage.