Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xerographica (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 29 January 2013 (→Too many discussion: Informed vs uninformed discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Golden Ratio

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Golden ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tibbits (talk · contribs)
• dicklyon (talk · contribs)
• johnuniq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A short Structural Dynamics section added to Golden Ratio describes the appearance of this number in a the time domain. The section was rewritten to satisfy a couple objections. The objectors persist in deleting the section for vague reasons, i.e., "inappropriate", "the book is worthless", "As for the building as an example of this equation, it's not a good one." or for punctuation, or the font in which the section appears. A second attacker did not leave anything on the talk page, just deleted the section and commented "consensus on talk (and reading the proposed section) shows the material MAY be suitable after reworking, but has nothing useful now)." The vague ad hominem attacks lead me to doubt the motives for the repeated deletion of the content. Specific criticisms could be addressed in a rewrite. Why is the building not a good example? It just isn't? So you will delete the entire section? Vibration of buildings is an oft-occurring design problem, certainly in the realm of structural dynamics, and one in which the golden ratio appears. Any constructive edits to punctuation, wording or formatting would be welcome.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Rewrote section. Obtained a writeup from the author of one of the references.

How do you think we can help?

Require specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements.

Opening comments by dicklyon

Tibbits does not seem to have put much effort into following up on the discussion at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics. The Golden ratio article is a magnet for trivial, biased, tangential, and unprofessional content, so a number of us are more protective there than we might be at other articles. The standards for getting new stuff into it are perhaps higher than a new editor expects. But we've talked to him about how to get there, and he hasn't done much. His assertion that the GR appears in "Vibration of buildings" is patently absurd; it appears in the solution of certain quadratic equations that are special cases of those that show up in just about every field; this is relevant to GR only if those special cases can be shown to have special significance. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Johnuniq

As Dicklyon explains above, the article requires more care than most other technical topics. As well as the five editors who have not supported the proposed text, there are numerous others who watch the article and who would have joined the discussion if they felt the matter needed further attention. The best thing would be for anyone wanting the addition to study the points made at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics, then rework the text and ask questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Ratio discussion

I'm Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've read through the discussion on the talk page, read through the page history, and read the section of the article that was added via the page history as well as your opening statements. Is there anything else any of you feel I should read that is relevant to this dispute? Please bear in mind that I am not a mathematics expert, especially in the area we're talking about here. If we need a mediator who is receptive in that area, it'll have to be someone other than me. I am, however, happy to guide a compromise discussion. Nevertheless, back to my original question, other than those items, what else do any of you feel I should read? Please limit your response to that, for now, prior to spilling the discussion here. Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A cursory look at the table of contents of the book by Morin cited in the Structural Dynamics section will reveal that it is not a "bunch of problems cooked up that happen to involve golden ratio". It is a college text on mechanics. The book can be searched on Amazon.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A look at the text Random Vibrations: Theory and Practice (Dover Books on Physics) by Paul H. Wirsching, Thomas L Paez, Keith Ortiz and Physics(May 12, 2006) will give an idea of huge number of engineering problems to which structural dynamics applies. Design of buildings to withstand earthquake vibration requires understanding their natural frequencies, for example.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading the talk page will also reveal that not every editor who commented is opposed to the inclusion of the section. "I think an illustration and brief comment is worthwhile, at least if it's done properly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)"Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me like this dispute centres around whether or not the sources for the section are reliable to prove this is a documented effect rather than an unusual quirk when in the right situation. If this is a common issue then there should be no issue finding further sources, per WP:BURDEN it's on User:Tibbits to provide these sources as, currently, it would seem consensus is against him. I would suggest, perhaps, inviting the members of Wikiproject Mathematics into the discussion as they may be able to provide an insight into the reliability of the sources. Cabe6403 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Our volunteer asked for documents, rather than discussion. (1)The book Design and Nature, searchable in Google Books has an extensive section on φ in dynamic systems. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9hOaEMFchvMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA153&ots=j-HZEA4Jw4&sig=KTEFUZKuql6_ef4834fFGptTEW8#v=onepage&q&f=false (2) An article, Turning points of the spherical pendulum and the golden ratio, available at cost, documents another manifestation of φ in a dynamic system. European Journal of Physics Volume 30 Number 2, Hanno Essén and Nicholas Apazidis 2009 Eur. J. Phys. 30 427 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/2/021 (3) Manifestations of φ in fluid mechanics and chaos theory have been deliberately omitted , although these both reside in the general area of dynamics. (4) Works related to the controversial and suspect El Naschie and his journal Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals have been ignored. Tibbits (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I tend to agree with Cabe that, at the moment, consensus is against Tibbits. That said, I would also agree with his suggestion that maybe inviting some members of WP:WPMATH to comment would be good. Go Phightins! 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting a message in WP:WPMATH inviting some of their editors in to discuss. Additionally, I'd like to hear more from User:dicklyon and User:Johnuniq as I notice they haven't contributed to the discussion as of yet. Cabe6403 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My opening comments above are accurate—there is only one editor at the article talk who favors the material in its proposed form, while five do not (plus others who would have seen the text and the discussion, and who were happy with the consensus). I appreciate the efforts made by volunteers here, but can this case be described as a dispute? No one has objected in principle to a mention of the topic if it can be shown to be WP:DUE, preferably with a WP:SECONDARY source. The main problem is that the proposed text is simply unhelpful for a reader in a crowded article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is best to focus on the reliability of the sources, and on the quotes from the sources. The fact that there is a 5-to-1 opinion on the Talk page is not too relevant: lots of times there is a minority voice that has a valid point. Also, the article does not appear to be too large yet: it is only 5K words. Granted, it is a very important article, and trivia or fringe views should not be included. But the way to exclude trivia/fringe material is to look at the quotes from the sources and go from there. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Such essay-like stuff as https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_ratio&diff=533038680 can be marginally tolerable in obscure articles where an expert's edit is a rare event, but not in such developed article as "Golden ratio" is. I advice Tibbits to go to talk:Golden ratio and explain what these cited works actually say. His essay is not intelligible enough to remain in an encyclopedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here is a version of the text that is under discussion:

Attaching two identical harmonic oscillators in series creates a two degree of freedom (2DOF) system having two modes of vibration. The ratio of the frequencies of the two modes is the square of the golden ratio φ. The quantities φ and -1/φ also appear in the mode shapes.

A variety of physical embodiments of such a 2DOF system are possible, and a number of them appear in the text by Morin. Another example is two pendula of equal length and mass connected in series. This system points up the division of intervals of time, rather than distance, by the coupled oscillators, whose periods also have the ratio φ squared. An application in engineering consists of a three story building whose second and third floors have equal masses, and are supported on columns of equal stiffness.

The occurrence of φ in the time/frequency domain extends into the quantum realm. Certain quasi-particles in the electronic environment of a solid state lattice exhibit phenomena in which the golden ratio appears as the ratio of the first and second energy peaks. The quasi-particles consist of vibrations, or oscillations, and because the energy varies as the square of the frequency, the frequencies associated with the first and second peaks are in the ratio φ squared.

1. Blevins, Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, page 48, frame 2 of Table 6-2
2. Crystal M Moorman and John Eric Goff 2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 897
3. David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics: With Problems and Solutions
4. Science, Vol. 327, Jan. 8, 2010

I think it is appropriate to ask for the editor that wants to include this material, per WP:BURDEN to supply specific quotes from the sources, so others can validate that the sources are indeed focusing on the golden ratio. If the four sources are talking about the golden ratio, and if all four are talking about it in the context of "structural dynamics" then the material should be okay for the article ... although perhaps in more condensed form. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The impression given by deleting the section in its entirety is that the section is not wanted on the Golden Ratio page. If the subject matter is acceptable, then the question is not one of content, but of whether constructive suggestions will be made rather than inflammatory off-the-cuff comments. I am willing to consider any suggested wording, but unwilling to feed the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, let's please remember to assume good faith; comments such as the one you posted are not helpful to solving the dispute and I would recommend you retract that statement. Go Phightins! 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

These are trolls who start a flamewar over a piece of substandard article content instead of making and improving something really useful, who blatantly ignore content and conduct guidelines. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

For some encyclopedia topics, the amount of relevant material on those topics is small enough that we can include essentially anything that is reliably sourced. Golden ratio is not one of those topics. It has such a huge literature (and one that, frankly, is filled with so much credulous nonsense) that we need to carefully pick and choose what we include in our article, so that we cover the significant topics without undue weight being given to topics that are not particularly important. In particular I believe that Tibbits' request for "specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements" is wrongheaded — value judgements are exactly what we need. My own judgement about the particular topic in question is that it is certainly not nonsense, and is reliably sourced, but its significance has not been made clear, especially given the length and level of detail in Tibbits' preferred version of the text. So, if he is to change the minds of the multiple editors opposed to this material, what Tibbits needs is not reliable sourcing for the truth of this material, but for its significance as an important part of the golden ratio topic: for instance, does the connection he describes inform other applications of the golden ratio? Is it fundamental to all mechanical systems of this type, or is it just an algebraic coincidence caused by the fact that these systems are described by low-degree polynomials with integer coefficients, some of which have the golden ratio as root and others of which don't? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lurie

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• John Lurie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Reverend Eccles (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is with the sentence in the lead, "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006." As I've tried explaining to Binksternet on his talk page, this sentence does not summarize a key point in the article. It's already included in the Painting section, and should not be included in the lead. Further, John Lurie is not a primitivist painter. Bear Surprise is distasteful, and it doesn't represent his painting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Binksternet and I have discussed the issue on his UserTalk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please remove the sentence "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006" from the lead.

Opening comments by Binksternet

I hold that the lead section guideline, WP:LEAD, indicates that all major points of a person's biography that are covered in the article body should be mentioned in the lead section. To define "major" in this case, I think that anything worthy of an article on Misplaced Pages is worthy of mention in the opening paragraphs. There are three articles specifically based on the career of John Lurie: the Lounge Lizards, Bear Surprise and Fishing with John. All three of these should be mentioned in the lead section regardless of whether they are representative of the artist's work. A very notable work such as Bear Surprise does not have to be representative, or in good taste, to be important to the artist's biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lurie discussion

• Hello, and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. After reading your initial comments, I can state that the main point of contention is the worthiness of the inclusion of that specific sentence into the lead. I will take a look at both user's talk pages before further commenting on this issue. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• _{Pinged participants. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)}

• Thanks for hearing the dispute. Just to reiterate, I'm not disputing the inclusion of the Bear Surprise internet meme in the article, just in the lead section. Again, the painting isn't primitivist, and the sentence isn't a key point in the article. Reverend Eccles (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. From your comments, I see that we have several points: The importance of the painting, its inclusion on the lead, and if it's primitivist or not. We can deal with the first and third before jumping to the big one, the second. I think this is the best way to solve this dispute. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. According to Misplaced Pages's article on primitivism, it is "a Western art movement that borrows visual forms from non-Western or prehistoric peoples." Bear Surprise is clearly a post-modern cartoon. As shown in the photo of Lurie's serious painting in the Painting section, it isn't indicative of the bulk of his work. In light of the rest of his career (music, film, television, art exhibits in museums all over the world), Bear Surprise is unimportant. Reverend Eccles (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Medical uses of silver (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ryanspir (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Doc James (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim. 2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs.

Opening comments by Zad68

1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Doc James

A great deal has been written on Misplaced Pages about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk and there is definitely some of that. I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed.

However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrn 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion

Thanks for commenting, all of you.

As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right?

I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources.

What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source.

It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

   http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering .
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles.
   http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing 

I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing.

1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old.

- "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1.

2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead.

Ryanspir (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as).

I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok.

"Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion.

I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion.

If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus.

Ryanspir (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrn 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything.

Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic

I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations:

• From RSN archive 32:

• "This question has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit."
• "I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit."
• "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source."

• From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics."
• From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Misplaced Pages articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does
• This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources"
• This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use.

I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion.

Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments.

I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN.

I think with that we may close the current RSN.

p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrn 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach.
• The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here?
• If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same.
• That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• User talk:Triggerhippie4 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs)
• Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman adds template {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} to articles Judea, Tribe of Judah, Kingdom of Judah, Philistines.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on my talk page

How do you think we can help?

Tell Emmette to stop adding the template

Opening comments by Emmette Hernandez Coleman

Fist of all the template is mis-titled, there was an editor who didn't like the praise "Palestinian territories" and tried to remove the phrase throughout Misplaced Pages. At the time the title was given that title the template only contained what is now the "Governance (since 1948)" section, it didn't contain the "Sub-topics" section. As the creator and primary editor I assure you, from the very beginning the template was intended to be a country/territory history template for the Palestinian territories, not a specialized "Governance" template. The post-1948 part definitely needs some work to turn it into that.

Now that that's out of the way, my understanding is that Triggerhippie wants the template to only cover Arab history. This goes against the precedent of every other Arab country/territory history template, they all cover pre-Arab history ({{History of Syria}}, {{History of Iraq}}, {{History of Egypt}}, {{History of Algeria}}, {{History of Libya}}), and country/territory history templates in general which usually don't have any problem covering periods from before the president day inhabitants (Arabs in this case) arrived.

Almost all those articles are about the area which today is roughly the southern West Bank (AKA Judea). The template was in them for about ten days, until Triggerhippie removed them a few days ago (aside from two IP's with almost no edits, and one person who said "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. "Palestine" is not a country"). His reason is that the template is just for Arab History. There was no consensus to remove the template, or to narrow the template's scope to just Arab history.

In sort, I see nothing wrong with the template covering the ancient/pre-arab West Bank and Gaza Strip, just as the other Arab templates cover the pre-arab and ancient history. Triggerhippie does.

I think his position that the Palestinian territories template somehow duplicates the Palestine template ({{History of Palestine}}) by including non-Arab history, but this is like saying that the {{History of Jordan}} and {{History of Syria}} templates duplicate {{History of the Levant}} by including non-Arab history. Palestine is a geographic region which is far border then the Palestinian territories, just as the Levant is a geographic region which is far border then then Syria or Jordan. All those templates cover pre-Arab history as well as Arab history.

Lastly, Triggerhippie posted notices of this RM in allot of places, including Wikiprojects Palestine and Israel . Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Governance of Palestine discussion

Hi, I'm Theopolisme, a DRN volunteer. Triggerhippie, it would be fantastic if you expanded your statement a bit: mediation is not possible without compromise, and it will help tremendously if you could clearly express your viewpoint. Thanks. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a point to remember, most of these articles are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, see WP:ARBPIA for more details. Cabe6403 08:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's three related templates: {{History of Israel}} for Jewish history in the Land of Israel, {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} for Arab Palestinians and {{History of Palestine}} for the area in general. Emmette adds the second one to the articles on ancient topics I pointed above.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I partly disagree, but I don't think we're supposed to be discussing this here before Theopolisme opens this for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought he ask you to expanded your statement which I interpreted to mean modify your original opining comments, but I suppose it doesn't really matter which section you expanded your statement on. Still, this isn't open for general comments until Theopolisme says it is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Too many (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xerographica (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've had many many many difficulties with Arthur Rubin. I've been blocked for a total of 3 weeks for my descriptions of his behavior. I think the "politically correct" way of categorizing his behavior would be to say that it is "disruptive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've wasted countless hours trying to explain basic economic concepts to Rubin.

How do you think we can help?

Review his recent edits

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

The complainant (I'm going to denote him/her by "X", to avoid accidentally insulting him by misquoting his name) has a unique understanding of economics, and is writing articles about concepts nominally in Public choice theory, some of which are legitimately in economics, and some are only related to economics in his opinion, and adding "See also" links from all of them to all of them. In addition, most of the articles consist of an (often unsourced) definition, a list of quotes (some of which are related, but none being specifically sourced — here, I admit sources could usually be found), a "See also" section, and a list of "references" (which should be titled "further reading", as there's nothing, specifically, that is "referenced".) I (and at least two other editors) have been removing the most egregious misquotes, irrelevant sections, quotes from unreliable sources, and irrelevant "See also" entries. We also have been nominating for deletion or transwiki to WikiQuotes some of the articles which (at least I) consider to have no hope of forming an encyclopedic article on the concept or quote.

He may legitimately accuse me of Wiki-stalking; except that it's allowed if the "stalked" editor frequently makes unhelpful edits.

Unless he has some specific complaint about me (which he hasn't identified), SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) and Srich32977 (talk · contribs), should be added as principals.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(User:Rubin was notified. I would usually have notified you as soon as I realised the mistake, but I was holding off until I had a reply about content vs conduct, since if this is about conduct I will be closing it anyway. CarrieVS (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

Too many discussion

Is this a dispute over a particular bit of content, or is it over each other's general conduct? CarrieVS (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• edited to address question to both of you. CarrieVS (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's over how the user approaches the content. Personally, I read numerous relevant reliable sources and make an appropriate edit. He does not read the reliable sources but edits anyways...and he undoes my edits. Then I have to waste my time on the talk page trying to explain to him what the reliable sources say about the topic. So it's impossible to have an informed discussion with him. --Xerographica (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but what do you want? Is there a particular dispute over a particular bit of content that you want us to help you agree on? CarrieVS (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Although X phrased the problem as a conduct issue, there is are underlying content issues, which might be suitable for resolution in this forum; specifically (1) whether sub-stub + quotations + See also + "references" (Further reading) is a suitable format for a Misplaced Pages article, and whether indirectly tangential Wiki-articles are appropriate in "See also". My assertion is that if "B" is relavent to "A", and "C" is relevant to "A" only through "B", then "C" should not be in "A"'s "See also" section, but I can see that WP:SEEALSO can be read, in good faith, to disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's about whether that is generally ok, then I don't think this is the right place. If it's about the format of particular articles, then it might be. And if we do discuss it here, we will be strictly discussing the content in question, and not anyone's general conduct or editing behaviour. CarrieVS (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS, there are, well, too many content disputes to list. You're welcome to look through his recent contributions though. My dispute with him is that he rarely rarely ever reads the relevant reliable sources...but he edits the content anyways. For an example of how it's supposed to work...look on the talk page of public choice theory. You can see some exchanges between Thomasmeeks and myself. That kind of exchange has never ONCE occurred with Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO. If it has actually occurred with Rubin or the others...then I'm sure Rubin would be able to provide one such example. --Xerographica (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution