Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 12 May 2009

Welcome

Hello, Michael H 34, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Slp1 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Harmonic Beat -- Global Warming

Nice find. Unfortunately, the Global Warming article is kept under very tight control by a small number of users and an admin who are vehemently opposed to the inclusion of anything that goes against the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Still, I'd hold onto that link if I were you. If you're able to find more sources to back it up, it might be possible to get it included in the article.

Here was my suggested addition:

Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles. It has been suggested that harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate.

Michael H 34 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Math links

Group (mathematics)
Lie sphere geometry
List of simple Lie groups
Classification of Clifford algebras

Physics links

Large extra dimension
Particle physics and representation theory
Loop quantum gravity
Shell model of the nucleus. Magic number (physics)

Coleman-Mandula theorem
Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem
Supersymmetry
Supergroup (physics)
neutrino oscillation
Parastatistics
Spin-statistics theorem
Quantum Hall effect
Fractional quantum Hall effect
Dark energy star
Homotopy group

Dimension
Spin (physics)
Anyon
String Theory

Other links

Wardenclyffe Tower Fathers' rights movement The China Study No fault divorce Parental alienation syndrome

Sand box

1. sandbox 1
   
2. sandbox 2
   

Internet Citation

FYI, see this 2009 study which casts even more doubt on the accuracy of Bernet's statement.--Slp1 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation is a very good one, and it should be included in the article. The citation and Bernet's statement must be read very carefully, though. One can both accept the "phenomena of PAS" while remaining cautious about accepting PAS as a concept to be used in courtrooms. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, indeed. That's why one needs to read the whole article, not just the abstract, to find out what the person meant. --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an extract from the abstract: "An Internet survey was conducted to examine the views of mental health and legal professionals about parental alienation (PA) in child custody cases. Findings from 448 respondents revealed much awareness about the PA concept and controversies, along with the need for further research in the field. In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)."

One can both accept the "phenomena of PAS" while remaining "cautious and conservative/moderate about supporting PAS as a concept." I assume that this is a result of the consequences associated with its "misapplication as an exculpatory legal maneuver" and the "aura of reliability" associated with expert witness testimony. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Two things... You really need to read the article, Michael, to find out what the author is driving at. Basing arguments and edits on an article you have not read is a dangerous business. Similarly, joining together bits and bobs from various sources to make a point as you are doing above in your "One can both accept..." paragraph is synthesis, as you perhaps realize by your "I assume.." statement. In fact, the full article says "The vast majority of respondents indicated their awareness of the controversies surrounding the term “parental alienation” and perceived a lack of empirical research to support the concept. Nevertheless, they acknowledged the existence of alienation dynamics within the child custody field, and almost all viewed it as a multi-dimensional construct. Respondents did not view parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner. Further, they overwhelmingly did not view PAS as meeting the Frye Standard of general acceptance, and almost all respondents felt that that PAS failed to meet the Daubert criteria." So, yes, this article supports the notion that people in the field recognize alienation dynamics in some families, but reject the notion of PAS. This conversation should be happening on the talkpage of the article, though. Also, could you answer my other questions there?--Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but I congratulate you on finding the article.

Nevertheless, they acknowledged the existence of alienation dynamics within the child custody field, and almost all viewed it as a multi-dimensional construct.

Respondents did not view parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner.

"So, yes, this article supports the notion that people in the field recognize alienation dynamics in some families, but reject the notion of PAS."

I disagree. They do not "reject the notion of PAS." They reject "parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner."

Michael H 34 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

PAS stands for "Parental Alienation Syndrome.", so yes they do reject the notion of PAS. It's too bad that you are not willing to engage with the questions of reliable sources and your view on NPOV on the talkpage. It will be hard to make progress if you aren't. But anyway, after this, I will stick to posting on content issues over there --Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MH34, this kind of semantic hairsplitting will almost certainly get you into trouble if you try to edit with this type of presentation as a goal. Keep it up, and you will almost certainly end up blocked or banned - permanently. Not by either one of us, but by the growing number of community members who see your approach as advocacy. I have seen this before - check out the talk pages of User:ResearchEditor and User:Guido den Broeder. I gave both the exact same warning, for the same problem. And both are now permanently blocked with no chance of ever coming back. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs and the community looks dimly upon it. Don't believe me? Bring it up on WP:ORN, or WP:NPOVN, or seek a request for comment. But don't try and blunt-force it onto the page. If your interpretations are not solidly and unequivocally backed up by high quality sources, there is considerable danger in trying to implement them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping that others will understand the issue. Mental health experts nearly universally accept the "phenomena of PAS", but reject the quote-unquote syndrome as defined by Gardner. I am not hairsplitting. I am trying to communicate this understanding, which is supported by more than just the Bernet citation, which you have had to ignore along with the Winerip article and the Whittier News article.... Michael H 34 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I obviously do not understand the issue. What is the difference of accepting PAS but rejecting PAS by Gardner, when Gardner is the primary theoretician behind PAS? What other conceptions of PAS have been presented for a different, non-Gardner PAS theory? And most importantly, what are your citations? Are your comments still based solely on Bernet? The two news articles do not matter as they are popular citations, with no real critical commentary, in non-scientific journals, which clearly can not be used to contradict the numerous reliable source that discount PAS. If all you have are Bernet and two news articles, you do not have sufficiently strong sources to significantly alter the page away from its current predominantly critical stance, particularly given the combination of external, uninvolved editors who indicated the American Journal of Family Therapy is problematic for citations of PAS. The majority opinion seems quite clearly to indicate that PAS is not widely accepted and it is undue weight to suggest otherwise. Please note that the last couple people who followed the pattern started by trying to force their changes on the main page, endlessly repeated the same arguments on the talk page, where they were rejected, followed by a posting on WP:ANI which indicated general support for a content ban, followed by an appeal directly to User:Jimbo Wales, followed by a topic ban, followed by an appeal for arbitration, then sockpuppeting, then a permanent community ban, finally ending up with an account on Misplaced Pages Review or Citizendium. You can repeat this pattern, get blocked and have your edits essentially expunged from wikipedia, or you can pull back from the brink and try accepting our policies and working with other editors. Your choice. The usual time to go through the entire cycle is about a month, so we'll see how right I am on June 12th. This may look like I am joking or being facetious, I assure you I am not. Keep acting like you are and you WILL get permanently blocked from EVER editing again. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)