Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 2 January 2007

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for your humor on Talk:NCAHF. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard . --Ronz 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT!

It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --Ronz 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett and all

Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it.

Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.

However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases?  ?? Jance 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) Shot info 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--I'clast 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, last time I looked you where either WP:OR or not. Shot info 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-Jimbo--I'clast 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say WP:N as an example)  :-) Shot info 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.Jance 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what, we have this other thing called WP:N which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars Shot info 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - Thanks again for the humor. --Ronz 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

General on Barrett NCAHF etc

You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Misplaced Pages, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article.

I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities.

I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.Jance 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points).

1. I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true.
2. I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion.
3. I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of Glyconutrients was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). Shot info 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a good thing that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, ya?  ;=) Jance 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) Hmmm, maybe I can use it as a excuse to clean it up hey??? :-) Shot info 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep!

Would you still add smething re Curtis? I am not quite sure what to do. I don't have a hotlink, but a hotlink is not necessary. I don't want to provide a hotlink from a dubious anti-Barrett website. However, the scanned opinion is the same.  ?Jance 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. This is the only issue re Barrett/NCAHF that I find particularly alarming. And so did at least two courts, evidently. Now I am headed off to get sleep. This weekend (New Years) I am going to be working. I need a break from Misplaced Pages, anyway. If you can, you might peruse the material that Curtis added. I don't think it is a bad idea to have the positions of NCAHF, but the style, wording, and length need attention. I have corrected some spelling, and wording. Oh, and references, even if it is their website, and formating. Jance 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

I need your, Arthur, Ronce et al help on NCAHF. Curtis recreated the NCAHF website here. There is an edit war. It is absurd. I have worked on it, to summarize, and asked him what else he thinks is important that is not covered on the summary. He seems to want to recreate the entire webpage.Jance 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF

Which did you think was ok? The article that is there now, and locked? Or the long 'version' that Curtis wanted to include? I wrote the version that is now locked - the section on "Positions". Curtis lifted large sections of the website(s), and it made that section pages long. The main issue now is the section on "Positions". And I can only speak for myself, but I do not object to "Curtis' taking it upon himself" to change the article. Everyone except Curtis objects to a series of excessively long sections that reproduces a website(s) and is a copyright violation.Jance

Hi

Your input would be appreciated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery BTW, it would be nice if you activated your email. -- Fyslee 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)