Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 30 September 2012

Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–February 2009 February 2009–May 2009 May 2009–June 2009 June 2009–August 2009 August 2009–December 2009 December 2009–March 2010 March 2010–June 2010 June 2010–August 2010 August 2010–November 2010 November 2010–December 2010 December 2010–July 2011 July 2011–September 2011 September 2011–January 2012 January 2012–April 2012 April 2012–present (Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

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}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

You never fail to make the best responses. Hopefully this'll keep the energy up to keep them coming. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'm supposed to eat burgers. They're totally wrong for my blood type. :P MastCell  17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You Fundamentally Misunderstand the Issue

Here's a couple tips for you:

(1) Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules.

(2) In time, right makes might; and with respect to thimerosal, you're on the wrong side of history.

sincerely and respectfully,

Seipjere (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your posts generally come across as neither sincere nor respectful, adding those adverbs only compounds the insincerity.

As to interpreting history's verdict, we already have a head-start. The thimerosal hypothesis already had its moment in the sun: a few researchers got rich and famous promoting it (of course, their research turned out to be scientifically flawed and deeply unethical, but who's counting?). There were pieces in Rolling Stone and Salon (filled with factual errors which did nothing to detract from their truthiness). The media were happy to "teach the controversy". Scientists who tried to sort out the truth of the matter got death threats. Oh, and a lot of parents were frightened into not vaccinating their children, with sad but predictable results - the incidence of autism has continued to rise regardless, but now we've got pertussis and measles epidemics to contend with as well.

I think history is rendering its judgement in real time. People have started to see through it, and we're left dealing with the hangover from this deeply irresponsible campaign. Seriously, I don't think history is going to be particularly kind to people like Andrew Wakefield and Mark Geier.

In any case, I'll leave it there. I'm breaking a number of my own rules, and unlike some of my colleagues, I've never found it productive to try to reason people out of an irrational belief. MastCell  17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Dr Wakefield's case to say definitively one way or the other (and frankly, I don't much care) but, as for Dr Geier, with all due respect, (to tell you the unvarnished truth) I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about...

I'm quite certain that he, and, for that matter, his son, David, are precisely the kind of good men who, having stuck their necks way out on moral grounds, good historians (and wikipedians) are likely to exalt. Seipjere (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose someday we may exalt a physician who, in the words of the Maryland state medical board, displayed "an almost total disregard of basic medical and ethical standards" and "exploited patients under the guise of providing competent medical treatment" (). But it's an impressive feat of cognitive dissonance to imagine a massive conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment while ignoring the concrete, well-documented ethical lapses of the researchers whose findings agree with your preconceived beliefs. Really, you should learn a bit more about Wakefield's case; it's instructive, and I think will enter medical history as a cautionary tale. MastCell  18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree on Wakefield as a cautionary tale, but, to get back to the point, I'm curious: how much do you know about the nuerotoxicity of mercury? Seipjere (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for. I'm certainly not an expert on the specific field of heavy-metal metabolism or toxicity. MastCell  05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point was MastCell being on the wrong side of history?--Tznkai (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You said it Tznkai... (I'm trying not to rub it in.)

(But, since you mentioned it...) It has very little to do with conspiracy, but a great deal to do with "cognitive dissonance". i.e. It's just how the scientific method works.

To steal a phrase from Otto Warburg and Max Planck (re. paradigm shifts and the scientific method): "Science progresses not because scientists change their minds, but rather because scientists attached to erroneous views die, and are replaced."

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You know when you're having a discussion, but the other person seems to be going to great lengths to avoid actually engaging with what you're saying? I'm sure you're trying to make some sort of point, between asking about my personal knowledge of mercury toxicity and spouting a constant stream of sententious quotations. But from my perspective, it feels like you're going to great lengths to avoid thinking critically or confronting some inconvenient truths. MastCell  04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on Elizabeth Warren

You reverted my edit on the article on Elizabeth Warren by incorrectly stating wikipedia policy. You referenced WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG as reasons why blogs do not consitute credible sources. While that is correct in many cases, The National Review does NOT meet that critera. WP:BLP's only reference to blogs is under a section titled "avoiding self-published sources" where it says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." National Review fits these criteria perfectly. WP:REDFLAG says " may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process." I understand that the self-published blogs by themselves do not consitute a news story, however National Review's coverage of the blogs DOES constitute a news story (regardless of the fact that this coverage was, in and of itself, in a blog). I have refrained from restoring the information to give you time to respond in case I incorrectly understand wikipedia's policy. If my understanding is correct, feel free to restore the content if you feel better suited to provide a more neutral treatment of the topic.

Addition: hope you see this before you comment. National Review's article contains additional context as compared to the original blog post. It has NOT been regurgitated "uncritically" as the two updates at the bottom of the article clearly indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs)

First of all, the National Review is not a "news organization". It has no news-gathering staff or function. It is a partisan opinion magazine/site. Secondly, I see no evidence that you're "using with caution"; you're using it as the basis for a substantial stand-alone section of a biography, which is sort of the opposite of "caution".

You're citing a blogger, supported by another blogger at the National Review. That is an insufficient basis to accuse a living person of a crime, per WP:BLP. If there is actual independent, reliable news coverage of this event, then properly phrased coverage would be appropriate. I think your time would be best spent looking for better sources rather than trying to force the material in with the existing, inappropriate sourcing. If this accusation doesn't make it beyond individual bloggers and the website of a partisan periodical, then you may have to accept that it is inappropriate to feature it in the biography of a living person. MastCell  18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner has now covered the story and as such I will be restoring the edit with the new citation. Perpetualization (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What is it about "independent, reliable sources" that you're not getting? MastCell  06:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way does the Examiner not qualify as a reliable source? It's an independent newspaper. Also, fox has now covered the story as well. By what possible standard do they not qualify as legitimate sources? Perpetualization (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is pretty dicey, as a free paper with a distinctly partisan outlook. Moreover, the Examiner piece simply repeats the blogger's allegations without examining their credibility (see WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject", emphasis mine).

More broadly, this is a great case study in why WP:BLP exists. The blogger's criminal allegation, which you were intent on cramming into Warren's biography, turns out to be incorrect (per the general counsel of the Massachussetts Board of Bar Overseers (). So we narrowly avoided falsely accusing a living person of a crime, because we insisted on waiting for high-quality sources. That's how BLP is supposed to work, and I hope next time something like this comes up you'll be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. MastCell  18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of letting biases play a role. The board of bar overseers is not the highest authority here, nor does its statement necessarily clear her. The only thing we narrowly avoided was acknowledging that one person had accused another person of a crime. The accusation is in and of itself worthy of inclusion, regardless of the merits behind it. If it turns out that there are no merits behind it, that can be stated as well. The fact that she has been accused is fact, regardless of the veracity of the allegations. The comparison I made on the talk page: we include reid's accusation that romney paid no taxes (even though the claim appears false) because it is fact that he made the accusation. Similarly... Perpetualization (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Board of Bar Overseers isn't the "highest authority" on who can practice law in a state? Er, OK.

There's a difference between an accusation made by Some Random Blogger and an accusation made by the Senate Majority Leader, in terms of notability. I mean, that's common sense, right? And the point of WP:BLP is that, given the prominence of this website, we don't simply regurgitate every criminal accusation that a blogger makes about a living person, because doing so would have the effect of amplifying them. MastCell  18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind my intrusion, I'd like to add a comment. I agree that the original edit had BLP issues; we were just repeating a rumor. At this point, fair and balanced reliable sources such as Fox News have picked up the story, which makes it notable, to the point where omitting it might seem like whitewashing. We still shouldn't simply repeat these accusations, lending them undue credence. However, I think there might be a place for a carefully-worded mention that includes the various refutations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one wish, it would be that we stop using the word "whitewash" every time a marginally sourced non-troversy fails to warrant immediate and prominent inclusion in a politician's biography. When you put together 24-hour news cycles and multi-million dollar "message machines", you're going to get something like this pretty much every day of an election cycle. Hell, even in the Massachussetts Senate race, the law license stuff has already taken a backseat to Tomahawk-gate. It makes us look like clowns - and not at all like a serious encyclopedia - when we get caught up in this. But that's less of a BLP issue and more a general complaint about the way partisan editing totally dominates our political biographies during election cycles. MastCell  19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one wish, I'd wish for unlimited wishes, but that's just me. I sympathize with your take on the scandal-of-the-day and we do have to be careful not to become part of the aparatus. My concern is that, across many articles about politicians and political groups (and definitely not just liberal ones), there is a pattern of suppression of "negative" information. Articles tend to get written by supporters, which tends to bias them in favor. This is why I primarily edit conservative articles rather than liberal; so that my natural bias can act as a counterbalance. Anyhow, my point is that this law license nonsense is something readers are going to come here to learn more about anyhow, so we might as well cover it accurately. If we don't, they'll just Google up some Fox News piece, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the State Supreme Court is generally the highest authority on who can practice law in a State, and the charges are brought by the State's AG office. As a practical matter, the Overseers take care of that sort of thing. They are certainly more authoritative than any blogger, journalist, or even legislative official.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I try to learn as little as possible about the legal system. :) MastCell  22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, moving on point for a second, repeating erroneous negative accusations that appear in the news cycle can do serious harm. By repeating something, Misplaced Pages at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. There are, at any moment, many, many negative things, said, occasionally by notable persons and notable outlets. That in and of itself does not make them in fact news worthy, or encylopedic. One of Misplaced Pages's great assets is the speed with which we can update. Likewise, it can be a great downfall, because the consensus process depends on outside sources producing good, high quality information. That process takes time, and the BLP policy serves to push the breaks on the edit cycle long enough to allow the news cycle to work through, and good (verifiable, accountable) information to emerge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing that irritates me is the short-sightedness. By rushing ahead with crappy sources, we gain nothing (since we're not a news site and we have no deadline), but we risk violating the basic ethical principles set out in WP:BLP by amplifying false criminal accusations against a living person. If this is a real story, it will be all over the legitimate news within 24-48 hours. Losing a couple of days isn't a concern, since it's more important to get it right than to get something in the article right now. But getting people to understand that is nearly impossible, especially during election season when partisan editing becomes the norm. MastCell  16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

By repeating something, Misplaced Pages at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. Yes, my thoughts exactly. Onward we go boyz, to fight racism, sexism, egotism, and every other kind of ism including just plain old fucking stupidism. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical Question

Are white blood cells actually white? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RfAr/Race and intelligence clarification

I'd been meaning to respond to your comments on the arbitration noticeboard talkpage, but I see the discussion's been archived, so I'll post briefly here instead.

At least as I saw it, the thrust of the motion that was adopted wasn't aimed primarily or solely at TrevelyanL85A2, who as you note wound up being blocked indefinitely anyway. But if you check the (admittedly overlong) discussion that led to the motion, there were at least two other editors who stated that they too thought it was just fine for them to be having discussions on their talkpages with socks of the users who were previously indefblocked for gross misconduct and harassment. When I and other arbitrators stated in no uncertain terms that they should desist from this practice, these editors told me in no uncertain terms that they would ignore me. It was in this context that I thought the motion was useful, to make clear that this shouldn't happen.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit. What was adopted probably won't win "motion of the year," but I don't think it opens up the floodgates of wikilawyering as you suggest, either. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)