Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 29 April 2013

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–September 2012 September 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)

Citrus aurantium

I'd be grateful if you would allow me to improve this article without interjecting your own biases. I don't know what you have against bitter orange-containing supplements, but I can assure you that I couldn't care less if they all disappeared from the market tomorrow. What I am trying to do (if you'd just leave my stuff alone long enough) is to present an "encyclopedic" article which covers as many aspects of this topic as possible. WP's "Citrus aurantium" article should not focus on one controversial use of the material. It's pretty clear to me that you have not read (or do not have the specialized knowledge required to fully understand) some of the citations which you so staunchly defend or so ardently oppose. It is certainly evident that you have not read widely on this subject, or you would not make statements like "the changes in wording seem to downplay the content/emphasis of reliable sources". What makes you the arbiter of what is or is not a "reliable" source?

Let's take an example of what you consider to be a fair and balanced statement: "Following an incident in which a healthy young man suffered a myocardial infarction (heart attack) linked to bitter orange, a case study found that dietary supplement manufacturers had replaced ephedra with its analogs from bitter orange." How exactly was bitter orange linked to the heart attack? The authors reported what they apparently read on the label of the supplement - they didn't do any chemical analysis of its actual contents, hence my use of the word "ostensibly". Furthermore, the thrust of this publication did not concern the replacement of ephedra by its analogs - a subject on which the authors did not exactly have any objective evidence, nor any professional authority. Indeed, if you really want to be pedantic, "ephedra" is a plant genus including a number of different species, some of which do not contain any of the stereoisomers of ephedrine. Even if you restrict yourself to the specific "Ephedra sinica", which does contain ephedrine isomers (which do not have identical biological properties and are present in varying proportions), how does it equate to "analogs from bitter orange"? Which "analogs"? I'm sure you know what you meant, but your statement isn't exactly a model of clarity and veracity. Xprofj (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: the bitter-orange-related heart attack was described here in the medical literature. The authors clearly implicated synephrine: "Although the nutritional supplement in question, Nutrex Lipo-6x, contains a variety of sympathomimetic and stimulant compounds, the most likely culprit for the induction of coronary artery spasm is synephrine, consequent to its structural and pharmacologic similarities to ephedra." You don't get to editorially disparage the published source in the article simply because you personally disagree with its findings. And, in contradiction to your assertion, the journal article does go into detail about the ban on ephedra and its replacement with other related sympathomimetics (see both the introduction and the middle paragraphs of the discussion).

I think that the text I included is a fair and accurate representation of the cited source - which is, after all, our goal as Misplaced Pages editors. If you prefer more precise wording about ephedra vs. ephedrine, then feel free to propose some such changes. It's probably best to conduct further discussion at Talk:Bitter orange rather than here, so that other interested editors can comment. I've already posted there. MastCell  18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that the use of the word "ostensibly" constitutes "editorial disparagement". I don't disagree with the findings of this particular paper, I disagree with the biased summary in the WP article that I tried to replace. By the way, thankyou for inviting me to feel free to propose changes to the precise wording re ephedra vs ephedrine. Feel free to be be peremptory in your editing with someone else. If you refer to what I actually wrote to you, above, you'll see that I used the word "thrust" in regard to the content of the paper. Precise terminology is important. Citrus aurantium does not equal "synephrine" does not equal Neo-synephrine does not equal "ephedra analogs". Scientifically, this is gibberish, and what better place to clarify the issues than in an encyclopedia?

Look, I don't want this to turn into a shoving contest, because it wastes time that both of us could be using more profitably elsewhere, and I know my subject too well to back down. You write that you "think" that what you've written is a fair and accurate representation of the original source. Well, what if I "think" otherwise? If you really care about the quality and accuracy of WP articles as much as I do, you should exercise a bit of self-scrutiny, not to mention self-restraint, and ask yourself why you feel so strongly about the subject of Citrus aurantium-containing supplements. What sort of prejudice do you hold against Herbalgram (or, perhaps, Mark Blumenthal, or herbal medication in general)? The Web article I cited was in support of the reference to marmalade, and if you bother to read it, you'll see it has a pretty decent description of the product (of course, you'll probably disagree with my assessment of "pretty decent"). I used this citation, not because I secretly wanted to further the cause of Supplements, but because I felt that as a Web-based source of information about the use of Citrus aurantium in marmalade, it would be easily accessible to most WP readers.

If your agenda is to warn an unsuspecting public about the dangers of Citrus aurantium, I suggest you marshal your evidence fully and properly, and write it down somewhere instead of taking me to task for the use of the word "ostensibly" in regard to a single publication with a particular viewpoint. I'll be glad to summarize it and put it into the appropriate WP article.Xprofj (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert on the pharmacology or toxicology of sympathomimetics; I accept your implication that you know the subject better than I. But I do have some experience with spoken and written English. "Ostensibly" is a word used to communicate the speaker's skepticism about the claim that follows. It's not really appropriate, for instance, to summarize an article about AIDS with: "HIV ostensibly causes AIDS."

I'm sorry I'm coming across as peremptory - really, I apologize. But that's how Misplaced Pages works. When you contribute here, your writing gets edited, and sometimes completely removed, by other editors - some of whom know less about the subject that you do. It happens to all of us. It can be really annoying. At the same time, people who respond to editing conflicts by asserting their real-life authority and knowledge, or with chest-thumping along the lines of "I know my subject too well to back down", usually don't end up thriving here. It's just not the sort of place where that approach works, for better or worse.

To answer your question, if we disagree about the best way to cover the topic, then we need to try to resolve the dispute via this site's dispute-resolution process. The first step is to discuss the issue and get outside input at the article talk page.

To answer your other questions, I don't hold any prejudice against bitter orange, and I'm not even sure who Mark Blumenthal is. I'm pretty confident that an herbal-industry trade publication isn't the best place to find scholarly, objective information about a dietary supplement. As to "warning an unsuspecting public", I think it's enough to honestly and accurately present the current understanding of the safety and efficacy of specific dietary supplements - without trying to put our thumbs on the scale with words like "ostensibly". That's our job, and if we do it well, then the reader can draw their own conclusions. MastCell  22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Belchfile

I left a note on my talk page, but wanted to ping you personally. Belchfire got an indef for continuing to sock, yet again. And a CU block at that, so no non-CU will be reviewing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can't say I'm surprised, but I do wish we'd cut the cord sooner - like maybe around his 4th or 5th block for partisan edit-warring. The drain on time and goodwill that these sorts of editors cause is really disappointing. I wish we had a more effective approach to the problem of tendentious, ideologically driven editing. Dealing with these sorts of folks is as responsible as any one factor for our failure to retain good editors, and for the process of disillusionment and cynicism that turns once-polite and effective editors into burnt-out, snippy grouches. MastCell  16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

On conflict of interest

Hey. Just a few comments with respect to User_talk:SlimVirgin#Thanks. Yes it's absurd that PR guys could suggest changes to an article in a serious encyclopedia, but I think it's a good idea to point out a lot of what happens in wikipedia would be absurd in a serious encyclopedia. I think we can agree that in principle a paid PR person either has a COI issue, and sometimes are paid to POV push. But we have plenty of editors here who are perfectly happy to POV push for free.

We've had true believers pushing material in innumerable articles. It would be absurd for professional astrologers to edit the astrology articles (particular the scientific criticism), dowsers edit the dowsing articles, etc etc, but this happens in wikipedia. They argue criticism from the article and it's not even contentious that they do it; in fact most editors would consider it rude to point out in a discussion that the person is an astrologer, dowser etc. We've also had a scientifically illiterate climate denialist skewing the Hurricane Sandy article during the Hurricane (just look at the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" part on the talk page). The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster got skewed and is still skewed as a result of the anti-nuclear editors (who seem particularly strong on wikipedia). There are tons of examples like this; these pushes are invariably very public high volume articles, and very embarrassing for wikipedia's credibility. None of these things would happen in a serious encyclopedia, but they do here. We have to live with the fact that people who have serious issues disconnecting their private beliefs from what is most prevalent in the most reliable sources edit wikipedia, and no one opposes it because those editors aren't paid. Misplaced Pages will never be perfect, it will always reflect these sorts of POV to some degree since anyone can edit.

At least with paid editors who've declared a COI, they keep their hands off the articles, and other editors use their judgement; if an editor has no judgement they face the consequences. I suppose an analogous argument would be, if a regular editor had found BP's material on their website (and not given on the talk page) under the GFDL and CC-by-SA and fully sourced, would you consider anything improper to have happened if they decided to incorporated it in (perhaps this misses some of the subtleties of the arguments). I don't think it's ideal to have paid editors, but I think wikipedia has much more serious issues with different editors who are here to push a POV pro bono. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but I see what you're describing as a false dichotomy. We can be concerned with both amateur POV-pushers and corporate PR efforts. The existence of one doesn't mandate that we ignore the other. (Apologies if I'm over-simplifying your point). I actually view the corporate PR efforts as a greater concern than "amateur" agenda-driven editing, precisely because most Wikipedians don't view the former as a problem and are thus unequipped to address it.

Think about the last few major POV-pushing cases that reached ArbCom (WP:ARBCC, the Abortion case, etc.) - they ended with topic bans for at least some of the POV-pushers. Now look at the last COI issue to reach ArbCom: the Transcendental Meditation case. Remarkably, that case ended up giving a conflicted editor free reign to edit articles in the area of conflict, and permabanned the individual who attempted to address the COI.

I agree we do a piss-poor job of dealing with agenda-driven editing, but I at least have faith that amateur POV-pushers will be handled if one invests the time to bring the situation before a group with a sufficiently high clue level. On the other hand, I have zero confidence that true conflicts of interest, paid editing, or corporate PR influence will be addressed effectively by any of Misplaced Pages's mechanisms, including ArbCom.

To your last point, I do see a big difference between a freelance editor who happened across material on a BP website and a corporate PR group providing us with material. It's the difference between a physician scouring the medical literature under his/her own initiative, vs. a physician being presented with a pre-selected set of journal articles by a drug rep. These things do matter when it comes to credibility. I get that Misplaced Pages is different because of our open-editing model, but to me that only makes it even more imperative to think seriously about handling these sorts of conflicts of interest. MastCell  19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the transcendental mediation case is a complete joke. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a pretty terrific statement posted at 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC) on the workshop of the TimidGuy ban appeal. It's pretty emblematic of a lot of the ways certain Arbitrators approach editing, both then and now. Not all of them, but unfortunately, not just the author of that statement. NW (Talk) 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbs could learn a good lesson from the Timidguy case if they took the time to examine Transcendental Meditation articles now, a year after the case closed. Maharishi_University_of_Management students and faculty have systematically collaborated to extol the TM movement and remove nearly all critical material. John_Hagelin's hagiographic article was rubber-stamped through GA late last year. I have no inclination to touch those articles because people who edit the topic critically get reprimanded and banned. Skinwalker (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a discussion needs to be held somewhere about the issue of whistleblowing on Misplaced Pages. What is a Wikipedian supposed to do when they find a serious conflict of interest? We're not allowed to out people onwiki (and I support that), we're not allowed to link to material that might out them (I support that too, but it currently means I can't link to an article in which BP named the BP editor, so it certainly creates a chill), and there's a strong sense from certain editors that we shouldn't even be looking into certain cases. Will was banned after emailing Jimbo with concerns. A member of the ArbCom at the time almost seemed to try to threaten Doc James because Will and Doc had exchanged emails about it. Here yesterday a member of the ArbCom said we shouldn't "bully" the BP editor.

Responsible whistleblowing is increasingly encouraged and respected in the real world, so Misplaced Pages is very out-of-step. Where there's a demonstrable public-interest issue, rather than some internal Misplaced Pages spat, editors really shouldn't feel threatened by the ArbCom. How we do encourage editors to feel able to speak out about COI when the issue is clearly serious enough? SlimVirgin 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, because of my growing concerns, only a few weeks ago I again raised the issue of paid editors with an editor that I thought was sympathetic to the concerns over paid editing and it all ended up with him asking me to delete any reference to our discussion from my talk page and he deleted the discussion from his page as well. I am not suggesting a conspiracy here--it seems he was embarrassed because he thought that he had responded--but never the less it was a very strange experience. In any big corporation, which is what Misplaced Pages has become, the upper levels just totally loose track of reality and people of all levels just do not like to rock the boat. As MastCell and NW know, I was just devastated when arbcom almost decided that I was not fit to work on some women's articles. That is when I realized that some of the editors that have been promoted to the top positions here are really out of touch with what it's like in the trenches, and Risker certainly made that fact apparent in her/his comments on the BP talk page. And then I was just absolutely floored to read of the fantasy land that Ocaasi lives in. Your "whistle blower" idea is perfect--I know I looked many times for a place to go and nothing was there for me. WP must realize that we have gotten so big that little people, like me, are getting lost in the maze of policies that have been created to keep up with changing times and our increased growth and importance to the larger world of information Unfortunately, on the other hand, these same guidelines that were created with good intentions have further isolated many editors from a way to take part in what attracted us/me to this site in the first place: a people's encyclopedia. I guess? :-)Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Transcendental Meditation research now states "TM improves cardiovascular function in the elderly and slows the aging process". It is mostly a bunch of cherry picked quotes from the literature promoting the practice. Independent sources are not given greater weight than ones written by the faculty of MUM and the practitioners of TM. AHRQ and Cochrane are not given greater weight than the "Journal of Integrative Cardiology". Arbcom has failed. Anyway have tried to restore the content at Transcendental Meditation that was supported by the last RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• @NW Two comments were made @ 11:34, and to me both are problematic. It is worrying that Arbs view "not found health benefits" as grudging negative terms, and view "found comparable benefits" as neutral (to me that would be the opposite, it makes confirming the null hypothesis look like a positive result). Did anyone ever find out what "When editing articles such as this, do you do so primarily from the perspective of a physician?" meant?

These transcendental medicine articles clearly also violate WP:FRINGE on multiple accounts. What sort of stuff were the arbs smoking to explain away the evidence, some of which is damning? The guy looks like he is trying to appear unbiased, but he fails horribly. When someone has a conflict of interest, they can't see their own bias. You need outsiders to judge it. Here is something I just came across which is clearly problematic since it tries to give it more scientific legitimacy:. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes and Will Beback managed to keep this sort of promotional / advertising copy to a minimum. Since he has been blocked all the articles now read more or less like a press release for the organization in question.

Misplaced Pages has become an advertising platform for a "new religious movements" which is attempting to portray itself as a science. And after considerable concerted effort a number of us have been able to do little about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What Roger Davies meant was entirely apparent - he meant that he seriously considers a physician to have a "conflict of interest" in editing a medical article, by virtue of, I dunno, actually knowing something about medicine (there was some off-wiki follow-up which I'm not going to quote here, but which underlined that interpretation of his comments in the case). And yes, Roger's idea of "grudging negative terms" is curious, to say the least. But this is where ArbCom stands on the subject. They see a real COI concern in the idea of a physician editing a medical article, but they don't have any problem with the BP public-relations team editing the BP article. MastCell  22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this so late, MastCell, but my attention has only recently been drawn to it. Your assumption is not right; I certainly don't hold either of the positions that you state I do. Physicians do not automatically come with a confict of interest when editing medical articles though, having said that, it's trivially easily to find situations where a COI might arise. My question was more to do with the tensions within the COI guideline and the highly selective way in which they are raised. The guideline says that people are expected to edit primarily as Wikipedians and not, say, as doctors or lawyers or candlestickmakers or whatever. I'm not at all clear how someone is able to turn on or off such perspectives/points of view yet that is precisely what the guideline expects. Given the very human nature of humans, this is an unrealistic expectation. What is beyond dispute is that the encyclopedia has benefitted enormously, and will continue to benefit, from people editing articles on subjects which are close to their heart.  Roger Davies 06:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's at best a half-truth. The encyclopedia has also suffered enormously from people editing articles on subjects so close to their hearts that they're unable to take an encyclopedic perspective. Roger, I respect the good sense you've shown in a number of complicated disputes, but you have been and continue to be very evasive on this particular question, at least on-wiki. I was actually more concerned by your suggestion that a physician who, in your words, is "paid a fat salary to cleave to orthodox medicine", is in the same COI boat as an adherent of a new religious movement who uses Misplaced Pages largely or solely to promote that religious movement's highly controversial health claims. If you didn't make such a comparison, then please set my mind at ease and allow me to restore the esteem in which I formerly held you. MastCell  05:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That remark has been quoted completely out of context. It wasn't about COI at all but explicitly about paid advocacy. It was a counter to the argument that ABC was a paid advocate because they worked for XYZ; I responded with "how does any of this equate to a greater degree of paid advocacy than, say, Doc James, who is paid a fat salary to cleave to orthodox medicine?". My point was that conclusions based on crude rules of thumb are both speculative and inaccurate. My question was purely related to symmetry and I'm sorry if it came across as anything else. Please note that the paid advocacy allegations, which was the basis on which the editor was banned, were subsequently unreservedly withdrawn.

On your half-truth remark, the issue is not whether someone has a COI but whether someone is pushing a POV. Unless they have both a COI and are pushing a POV, it doesn't really matter what they believe in their heart of hearts. I do understand the frustrations that arise in POV-related disputes but unless people engage in clear sanctionable conduct ArbCom's hands are tied. We do not make content decisions so we cannot determine that Group A are saying the right things, and Group B are saying the wrong things, and that therefore Group A can run Group B off the encyclopedia. All we can do is try to create an environment where Group A and B can reconcile their differences, and if anyone clearly oversteps the boundaries deal with it. For what it's worth, my personal view is that the consensus model is probably past its sell-by date (and has been for some time) but until something else comes up to replace it, we're stuck with it, warts and all.  Roger Davies 06:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you meant the comparison as a hypothetical example of the absurd lengths to which someone could stretch Misplaced Pages's COI guideline, then OK. Is that the context you're getting at? To be clear: I don't know a single physician whose financial, professional, or personal well-being depends in any way on whether Transcendental Meditation is proven medically effective. On the other hand, it's obvious that an adherent of that particular new religious movement has a clear personal (and possibly financial or professional) stake in promoting the effectiveness of TM. That's a starting point for a rational discussion of COI. From there, it's an obvious concern that our content on the medical benefits of TM is written primarily by people with a strong personal (and possibly financial or professional) stake in "proving" its effectiveness. That conflict of interest would demand disclosure in any reputable reference work, journal, or textbook, but here it's totally hidden from the casual reader.

And since you bring up ArbCom's role in deciding content, I think the TimidGuy ban appeal case was a low point in which you (among other Arbs) contravened the principles you've stated above. You and others clearly decided that TimidGuy's edits were "neutral" while Will's were "POV-pushing", and acted accordingly. You did determine that Group A was "right" and Group B "wrong" on content. One of your fellow (former) Arbs went so far as to assert his real-life expertise in evidence-based medicine as a qualification for determining the "correct" version of disputed content. Let's drop the pretense that ArbCom is content-blind; certainly it wasn't in this case. MastCell  18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, mine was a hypothetical example, used rhetorically; a reductio ad absurdum counter to a specific argument.

  No, MastCell, this was an evidence-based decision and probably the only logical one after closely examining the facts. I don't think we even looked at WBB's content edits; it was WBB's conduct that was unacceptable, which even he now freely admits.  Roger Davies 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, the number of articles that have suffered, as you put it, is trivial compared to the vast numbers of satisfactory articles written by enthusiasts for the subject.  Roger Davies 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently Roger Davies said that one of the arbitrators at the time of the case was a physician. On the TimidGuy workshop page Jclemens wrote, "I am, to the best of my knowledge, the only arbitrator who's actually had formal education in evidence-based medicine." So presumably Jclemens is that "expert physician." Does Jclemens have the medical expertise comparable to that of a fully qualified doctor? Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There was one "expert physician" on arbcom that I know of and he opposed the banning of Will Beback. Roger Davies could be using the term "physician" liberally to mean Jclemens as he does state he is a physician assistant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Casliber pointed out the error in Jclemens' statement at the time with an "ahem". Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cas is a physician. I'm assuming that's whom Roger had in mind. MastCell  16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that Jclemens is a PA? It seems to me that I remember that he is a volunteer fireman and as such may have taken an EMT course. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in one of his userboxes (PA-C). Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone here wants to comment, there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but I'm not sure it's a good use of effort. No matter the outcome of the quasi-RfC, Will can only be un-banned by the Committee. Even in the unlikely event that the informal RfC demonstrated unanimous support to un-ban Will, ArbCom would likely dismiss it with the argument that participation was skewed in Will's favor.

That case has really puzzled and troubled me from the time it was decided, and not just because of the ignorant approach to conflicts of interest. The degree of venom expressed toward Will by several arbitrators (most notably, but not exclusively, by Jclemens) was so far out of proportion to his actual purported misdeeds that it didn't quite add up. Of course, there was substantial off-wiki evidence to which I'm not privy, so perhaps something in that evidence explained it... but still. We've treated far worse editors far better than Will was treated. Something about the case still doesn't quite add up. MastCell  18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"so perhaps something in that evidence explained it" – it doesn't. I have read it and I have asked arbitrators who decided that case to explain their view of things to me. I still don't see it. NW (Talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading over those case pages is like going back down the rabbit hole into Bizarro Misplaced Pages. Like, here I happened to notice that a group of pro-TM single-purpose accounts bloc-voted against James' RfA, and that many of these accounts apparently shared overlapping IP addresses. That seems sort of like a reasonable justification for some of Will's concerns, but at that point there was clearly nothing that was going to change anyone's mind about anything. MastCell  20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the venom came from WBB's interactions with PumpkinSky/Rlevse. Around the time the TimidGuy case was closing, Rlevse was trying to get unblocked. WBB apparently told Rlevse off-wiki that he would reveal his practice of sockpuppetry and/or vote-stacking requests for adminship - while he was a bureaucrat and arbitrator - if he persisted in asking to be unblocked. Risker and Jclemens alluded to this in post-case comments, and this is why Pumpkinsky has been accusing WBB of blackmail. Skinwalker (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

Hi MastCell, I appreciate your contributions to the discussion of BP and COI editing over on Jimbo's talk page. I replied to some of your remarks and would be interested in your further thoughts, either there or at another suitable venue of your choice. Thanks, alanyst 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I responded at the bottom of User talk:Jimbo Wales#Break. MastCell  20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wetback Edit War

I wanted to thank you for actually answering my questions on the Talk page of Wetback (slur) regarding my edits. It's really sad that other people would rather just bully and throw their weight around than actually take a moment to explain something to someone who not only wants but asks for a discussion. It diffused an ugly situation.Shelbystripes (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck and happy editing. MastCell  22:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me...

A quack said you were David Gorski. I guess you're not, but that is high praise, in my book. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I make it a point not to comment one way or the other on speculation about my IRL identity. But that would indeed be high praise. Besides, if a quack said it on the Internet, it's probably... true? :P MastCell  04:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And...I heard from a bird that you were David Cellski, a Bay Area rapper and music producer. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think you're a better writer than Gorski, tbh. Much less prone to rambling :) Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Misplaced Pages

Thanks for your edit of Reliability of Misplaced Pages regarding liberal bias. I agree that opinions by commentators should be mentioned, but the article should not give the impression that there is evidence to support the liberal bias claim as long as there is little or no evidence from reliable sources. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidance

Hello, MastCell. You probably recall helping out an editor a couple days ago by getting his agreement to pursue his concerns "on the relevant talkpages and noticeboards rather than through edit-warring going forward". He has indeed been pursuing his concerns on the article's talkpage which is commendable (continuing to advocate the removal of "anti-immigration" from the TPM article), but he reverted twice more in the last 24+ hours or so (1st, 2nd) for a cumulative total of nine times. Would you mind reminding him about that agreement? If the advice comes from me, I suspect it will be unwelcome. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous quote

MastCell, in a recent discussion you inserted a quote box that artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist.

For the record, here is what I wrote:

This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.

I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.

The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionaate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt.

If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.

It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial.

I would appreciate some remedial action on your part in this unfortunate incident. Apostle12 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know you, so I have no idea whether or not you're racist. I do know that you've made statements on Misplaced Pages - including the one you've repeated above - expressing what I consider to be racist views. As to compressing your statement, I linked it via diff in my post so that anyone interested could read the whole thing. I actually left out what I think were the worst parts - for instance, where you said that the criminal-black-man stereotype exists "not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionaate number of violent crimes—in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong." I don't have anything else to say to you, and I'd prefer to have as little to do with you as possible. MastCell  22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are susceptible to statistics I would suggest this . Read the last half first, since the stats are there. There is no pervasive racism in modern US crime conviction, sentencing, or time served. One cannot explain all disparity by racism in policing and indictment, since if these had racism of gigantic enough proportion to explain conviction rate differences it is impossible to believe that racism this systemic and this virulent evaporates when it hits the courtroom door. Do you believe that? SBHarris 00:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm susceptible to statistics, but I'm also aware of their potential for misuse. So I'm not quite prepared to accept a single single op-ed piece from 1996 as the definitive answer to the complex question of racial sentencing disparities. Is there some reason you've chosen that piece and avoided anything published in the last 17 years? Here's why it matters: in 2005, the Supreme Court struck down federal sentencing guidelines in United States v. Booker. That decision restored a substantial degree of judicial discretion in sentencing. Follow-up studies demonstrate pretty clearly that since Booker, African-American defendants are sentenced to approximately 20% more prison time than white convicted of similar crimes (e.g. , ). So when you state that there is "no pervasive racism in modern US sentencing", I'm left to wonder: are you susceptible to statistics? MastCell  03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, show me a study that finds a racial bias with proper controls and I'll be glad to cry racism. Though even if a 20% sentence disparity is real it hardly suggests that a 900% homicide differential is due to the same bias problem. Anyway the problem with sentencing mandatory guides is that you got the same sentence for having a kilo of coke whether it was your first offense or your tenth. That should matter. Was that controlled for in the studies you cite? No. They're no good without it. SBHarris 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So you presented a 1996 newspaper op-ed as definitive, but now that I've provided links to detailed and up-to-date statistical analysis you've suddenly gotten very demanding about methodology and control groups? The latest U.S. Sentencing Commission report is here. Part E discusses demographic disparities in sentencing. Their methodology is described in detail here. Knock yourself out. MastCell  04:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As the source provided by Sbharris points out, the fact that young American black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes is real enough. And even with overall violent crime rates dropping (the source is rather dated) this disproportionality continues. I do not think it is right to stereotype black men as criminals, however if the "criminal black man stereotype" is to be overcome I believe efforts to do so will need to originate with black men themselves. I defend my original statement:

"If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior."

Apostle12 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That was the idea with the Nation of Islam dress code back in the early 60s , where the had young black men dressing like IBM salesmen. Who fears that?

We need to remember that 80% of crime against US black people is committed by young black men. Which is why the National Black Caucus has been in favor of all those laws decried by "white liberals" as racist. Black people know very well who they are being mugged, raped, beaten, burgled and shot by. They have eyes and are not stupid. They do not appreciate white liberals telling them that their own direct experience is wrong, and that the entire idea is some complicated stereotype perpetuated by skinheads, and actually has no more truth in it than the idea of bad women drivers. They know better. I've lived in Long Beach (where just incidentally I was mugged by two black men) and near Compton. I practiced medicine in LA and saw what came through the ED doors. And let me tell you, it surely wasn't black people who said they'd been assaulted by IBM salesmen. God knows where MastCell is from. Canada maybe. Or Mars. SBHarris 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, in the discussion above you've shown you have very strong personal opinions about how race-based statistics are interpreted. I also know you have blocked several editors under the race and intelligence arbitration case, and all of the editors you blocked were those who held opinions you disapproved of. Last summer there was a declined arbitration request where one of them claimed you were violating WP:INVOLVED by doing that. Do you consider it appropriate use your administrator powers as part of your opposing of editors who you consider "racist"? Akuri (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond to your post, because I think virtually every one of its sentences stretches reality or the truth in some significant way. I'm comfortable that I haven't used my administrative tools inappropriately. If you'd like to discuss a specific block, then I'll do so, as long as it seems to be part of a serious, productive accountability process rather than a frivolous wiki-legal timesink. MastCell  18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your response shows me you are not likely to change your actions or admit you've made any mistakes, so there's no benefit discussing it here. I'll just leave it that I think it's a problem that you try to fight "racism" both in these disputes and with your admin powers, and your response does not reassure me. Akuri (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm more comfortable admitting my mistakes than the average Misplaced Pages admin - admittedly, a very low bar. :P In general, administrative actions in the race/intelligence sphere are among the most heavily scrutinized on Misplaced Pages, thanks in large part to the capacity of certain editors and their proxies for frivolous wiki-litigation. Given that level of scrutiny, I'm not aware of any of my administrative actions which have been identified as inappropriate, and you've declined to specify any. So I'm not sure what I'm expected to confess to here. MastCell  18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless I missed some, of the nine race and intelligence related arbitration requests there have been in the past year, there was only one that named you as a party. If that's all there was, I think you've been under less scrutiny than the other admins whose actions in this area have been questioned. Anyway, there is no need to analyze this now. I'm just trying to get a feel for the issues surrounding this topic and the various admins involved in it. Akuri (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm sure it's a lot of work to familiarize yourself with all of those ArbCom requests, enforcement actions, noticeboard threads, and other arcane wikidrama. I mean, you're a new user - it's not like you participated in these disputes under another account name in the past or anything, right? MastCell  22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I registered, I participated in race and intelligence articles for about a year as IPs. But it's only after Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked my IP range, and refused to justify the block when other editors challenged him about it, that I decided I have to familiarise myself with the arbitration case if I want to participate. Knowledge is power, and anyone who doesn't have the knowledge won't be able to defend themselves when they're abused. 101.0.79.8 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(This is Akuri posting while logged out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.79.8 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disproportionate rates of violent crime among young black men

A truly excellent article that addresses the violent crime disparity in a productive way:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Forman_RacialCritiques.pdf?pagewanted=all

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

Based on FBI Uniform Crime Report arrest data from 1960 to 2000 in 80 of the largest U.S. cities, the researchers found that bewteen 1960-1979 the gap between black and white homicide arrests dropped 55 percent, on average. Between 1980-1999 the gap re-widened -- on average more than 20 percent -- with the explosive growth of the crack cocaine epidemic in major U.S. cities. By the end of the century, nearly 30 percent of the largest U.S. cities had black homicide arrests rates that were more than 10 times higher than white rates.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132050.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/12/young-black-and-male-in-america/you-cant-blame-the-police — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle12 (talk • contribs)

I know this may be difficult for you to believe, but I actually don't want my talkpage plastered with arguments about how African-Americans and Hispanics are prone to violent crime. I'm not big on "banning" people from my talkpage, but I really have nothing further to say to you. MastCell  05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I knew you didn't want to talk to me, so I was responding to what I thought was your request for better sourcing during your discussion with sbharris. I will stand down. Apostle12 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I reverted most of your edits. There is a long, ongoing discussion on the article's talk page that you're welcome to join in on so that the folks who are working on that page can come to a consensus. 5minutes (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Did you revert them because you disagreed with them, or because you just want me to clear them on the talkpage? You do realize that about half of my edits involved formatting and correcting citations - I mean, for some reason editors seemed to have made up their own novel titles for newspaper pieces, which is inappropriate. MastCell  18:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed most of them because of consensus issues at the talk page. I've restored the WP:PEACOCK edits and am working to restore the reference edits. The prosecutor's party (which should have used a different reference, which I've now corrected) was agreed to in order to keep another user from turning the statement into conspiracy theory fodder. The expansion of the incident (like including the NY Times analysis) was left out because it's opinion, not encyclopedic - and was agreed to via consensus of the editors. Again - nothing personal... just trying to keep the peace with a few of the other editors. 5minutes (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if some editors are making unreasonable demands or threatening to turn the article into "conspiracy theory fodder", then the correct answer is to educate them about how this site works, not to pander to them by creating original synthesis and borderline WP:BLP violations. But OK, I apologize for the harsh tone, and I'd appreciate restoring the reference fixes at the least. MastCell  18:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've restored your fixes of my references (I suck at it) and all is well. And you're right - educating users about property editiquette is a MUCH better way to handle it... IF they're receptive to being educated. Unfortunately, we've got a couple who are, well... not. This has honestly been one of the most migraine-inducing pages I've ever been a part of, and I appreciate your willingness to offer good edits. 5minutes (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you've gotten some good feedback at WP:NPOV/N. You did the right thing by getting outside feedback. If the editors in question are unreasonable and unwilling to work under the guidelines of this website, then the solution is to involve more reasonable editors, via the appropriate noticeboards, as you've done. It will work itself out. I apologize for the tone of some of my comments on Talk:Steven Crowder - the harshness isn't directed at you. It's just frustrating to see how easily a page can be held hostage by a small number of unreasonable people. MastCell  18:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie there, buddy. Time to take a Midol. 5minutes (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, thank you for validating my action to take this to the noticeboard to get outside, fresh feedback in lieu of editors who've refused to compromise and have peppered me with threats,profanity, assuming undue authority and chased off other editors with sarcasm and condescension. I have gotten several more opinions now that support adding the info, some with long Wiki-edit histories (I know that shouldn't matter, but a long time user, and recent editor was made to feel unwelcome and their input unwanted by the reception they received.) I have more than anyone bent over backward and offered multiple ways to reach consensus, using the guidelines as my guide. Offering alternate versions, rewording language, all the things suggested with no counter-suggestions, just "no".JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

We don't seem to share an objective reality. The response to your proposals has been virtually unanimously negative. Do you understand that? MastCell  23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have a different idea about what objective means. To me it means neutral info based on facts. But as humans, we are bound to have different opinions of what is objective. But no need to get into semantics. If you're editing something to make it right or better, I think the fear of negative responses should be irrelevant. Sometimes, the truth hurts, as they say. Believe me, I've gotten plenty of profanity and condescension, which of course says more about the responder than the editor. They have no info to respond with, so they resort to name-calling, etc. My point, that continually seems to get lost, (I'm sure you're aware of the consensus process),it is recommended that if you don't like someone's proposal, to OFFER A COUNTER-PROPOSAL with the goal of reaching language people can live with-consensus! You'll see almost no compromise or counter-ideas. Perhaps only one? Just "nope", "move on", etc. As far as "nearly unanimous", you're talking about 4 or 3 against 3,2 or 1 (depending on people changing their minds), not some huge sample of editors, which is why *I* took it to the NPOV page, and btw, I'm disappointed that you gave 5minutes credit for that, and also in him for not letting you know that when you praised him. Also find it odd that even when you were notified that it was me that went looking for additional input, you didn't own that, and give that same credit to me. Oh well. I can't claim clear bias/POV posts on your talk page. In any case, it did generate some fresh opinions, on BOTH sides,the page is much approved and the two most active editors happy. Sad that it took this much time and effort and that I had to involve WP:NPOV/N and admis, but I'm glad I was able to contribute to a much improved article. Oh, time to take my Midol. ;) Thanks,JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Why did you send me a "3 revert warning"?! While I have had my pages reverted repeatedly, (months ago), I haven't reverted the current page even once? And what's talk of edit warring...we've finally come to an agreement on language and consensus between the most active editors on the page. Did you mean this for someone else? Because I certainly do not triple-revert, as I told you , "authority" on the page said no changes could be made, period, let alone reverting. Please provide evidence to what you are referring. If it was meant for someone else, no harm no faul.JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• I wanted to be sure you're aware of this site's policies on edit-warring. It seems you are. MastCell  17:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate a response to my message above my previous one, where I answered and addressed your questions.JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Again, you did not address the direct questions I asked you and instead sent me a note regarding semantics and diverting the attention away from the subject in order to pick a personal fight. Of course I know the Misplaced Pages definition of revert/undo, and correcting MY OWN WORDING due to a change in context in the article doesn't qualify, neither does deleting what was clearly a mistake by an editor in leaving THE SAME SENTENCE IN TWO PARAGRAPHS WHEN IT WAS MEANT TO BE MOVED; THEY FORGOT TO DELETE THE INITIAL ENTRY. If you'd LOOKED at the edits, you would have seen that. I don't know how many times I have to say it; most were minor edits that ANYONE would have/should have made that made no difference in the CONTENT!!

You've been nothing but uncivil to me from the onset, I've made passionate arguments for my case and rather than debate, you seemingly had chosen the low road and insulted me personally and repeatedly rather than address my points. But, that's usually what someone does when they are losing a debate. I'm not going to play that game to detract from a solid article that was finally getting somewhere after months of hard work until you got involved and instead of focusing on the article engaged in this subjective, nitpicking attacks on me while ignoring the behaviour of others (profanity, threats, bullying, multiple reverts within minutes, rejecting anything I suggest just out of out of spite, etc).

You hate conservatives. Fine. Would never try to convert you nor convince you that it is blatantly clouding your judgment in my opinion. I'm an Independent and have voted all across the spectrum. I've been lauded in many tangible ways for my fairness,(IRL, where it makes a difference) and I don't need validation from you, nor any further suggestions of the contrary.

In fact, *I would like NO FURTHER PERSONAL CONTACT; we are bound to have differing opinions on Talk Pages which of course I have no control over. I'm too ill and struggling to recover to have to deal with someone whom I don't even know bullying me daily over something they seem to care about in a clearly biased way and out of spite seems to enjoy degrading other users in an apparent attempt to feel more important. I prefer to stay focused on the topic rather than have debates about peripheral minutiae that get in the way of the big picture; ie, ACCURATE AND FAIR information.

Like so many, you seem to have gotten so intertwined with Wiki and all its byzantine "rules" (almost to the degree of a religion) that you use it as a weapon to further your own agenda. Perceive me as you like; on a different plane,(which may literally happen soon you'll no doubt be happy to hear) and all the other negative attributes you've attributed to me. I can't care. Wish you the best and GOOD DAY.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

On identifying the quality of journal articles...

Hi MastCell, I see you're active in the discussions about sourcing using journal articles. Maybe you can provide some guidance: In general, it seems like the rule of thumb is, "If it's listed in PubMed, MEDLINE indexed, relatively recent, and the Pub Type is a Review or Meta-analysis, it's good to use in an article and all articles meeting these criteria are of equal weight." Sometimes a mention of Impact Factor comes into play, but that's uncommon, and Doc James has pointed out that a good, neutral article in an independent journal can have a low impact factor, and a biased one in a journal connected to the subject can have an inflated impact factor due to the marketing influence of the institutions promoting whatever it is. So basically once the following boxes are ticked:

• PubMed
• MEDLINE
• recent
• Review or meta-analysis

and maybe the Impact Factor slider is set to "high enough", it's good to go. This does keep out a lot of crap but obviously it's not perfect. What I'm looking for is more objective, independently-verifiable parameters I can use to either filter out likely bad articles, or make an argument about relative weight evaluation between two articles that otherwise meet all the criteria. I know the basic premise behind my question sucks, but the problem comes in when I'm having a sourcing discussion about some glowing review of Herbal Remedy X in The Journal of Chinese Herbs are Awesome (that otherwise ticks all the above checkboxes) and another review about X, published in a (subjectively(?) determined) very well-respected journal, that didn't find the evidence for its effectiveness quite as compelling. I can go through the articles and look at the primary sources reviewed but I don't want to have to go down the path of redoing the evaluation of the primary sources that the secondary sources should be doing, and in fact WP:MEDRS says we shouldn't do that. Any advice? Zad68 12:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a generalizable checklist to sort the quality of secondary sources/review articles. The quality of the journal is one indicator, but as you point out, it's hardly infallible (and impact factor is not necessarily tightly coupled to a journal's quality or standing; high-quality journals in specialized fields may have relatively low impact factors). In the end it comes down to editorial judgement, which is in increasingly short supply and cannot be legislated.

I've encountered the same problem - there is a proliferation of low-quality niche journals, particularly in the open-access world (per the recent coverage in Nature, the New York Times, and elsewhere). It's possible to get pretty much anything published in a PubMed-indexed journal if you're not picky. I've often thought about how easy it would be - if I were dedicated to promoting some fringe idea - to publish review articles supporting it and then cite those here. (In fact, I've had the occasional offer to write a review article on the subject of my choice in some reasonably reputable journals - and the temptation to publish something with on-wiki repercussions was non-negligible).

I think the best approach is to try to agree on the best-quality sources upfront, before you get into what they actually say. Right now, a lot of editors approach things back-assward - by finding positive mentions of a treatment/hypothesis in various sources and then making the case as to why those sources are "reliable". We had that problem on the abortion articles leading up to the ArbCom case, and it's going on right now (as best I can tell) in the Transcendental Meditation walled garden.

In terms of specific approaches, this is an area where a medical librarian can be enormously helpful, as they're often very well-acquainted with the quality and quirks of various sources. My current institution has some online tools designed to aid in collecting evidence-based information; I sometimes steal their list of "quality sources", since they've been vetted by the information-services people at a major university. I could share the list with you, but there wouldn't be many surprises: Cochrane, the USPTF, the ACP Journal Club, AHRQ, and a few others top the list. The real challenge, particularly in fringe and alt-med topic areas, is that it's often better to use no evidence rather than cite poor-quality evidence. That's a basic scientific principle, but it goes against the grain at Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, sorry- that's not very helpful, but the key is really to nurture a culture of clueful, sane editors. To that end, thanks for your work, and please keep it up. :) MastCell  18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in, this week I've been reminded that you can't make a list of necessary and sufficient, but only necessary conditions for having a good paper. Consider this paper. It was published in a well known journal published by the American Physical Society. It looks like a good paper; it's on a good topic, it cites good papers, it has math that looks like math from a good paper, and while I have only encountered it in PDF form, I'm sure it even smells like a good paper. However, I found myself in the unfortunate position of having to go through it in detail, and pretty much everything in it is wrong. It's not just that they came to an incorrect conclusion or made a few mistakes, but that pretty much everything in the paper is nonsensical. /rant. Anyways, good luck. a13ean (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! And, of course, yours was the answer I expected the most, and sadly was also the answer I feared the most.

I am asking this question not really for my own article development needs, but for purely practical purposes. When I do article development I try very hard to survey the sources, identify find the best ones, and then let the sources lead me to the article content. If I'm the only active content developer at the article at the time, no problem: if I think Journal Article X is slightly better than Y, I'll use X and not Y.

The sticking point is exactly as you said: "Right now, a lot of editors approach things back-assward - by finding positive mentions of a treatment/hypothesis in various sources and then making the case as to why those sources are 'reliable'." This is the classic POV article development approach, where you start with the conclusion you like, and then you find sources to support what you came to the article to make it say. It'd be great to get the other editor to "try to agree on the best-quality sources upfront" but that's not the scenario. I've found arguing with such editors to be very time-consuming and not particularly productive, but I accept having to do that as a cost of doing business within Misplaced Pages's development model. What I want is to minimize the amount that I have to do it.

WP:MEDRS as it currently stands is a huge help: if someone brings a newspaper article to support a biomedical claim of effectiveness, WP:MEDRS says "No" for me. If they come back with a primary rat study, point to WP:MEDRS. Review article from 15 years ago? WP:MEDRS. For such situations, that's the beauty of the awful checkboxes - they're binary switches that can shut down an argument before you even have to have it, and they're independently verifiable, external to one's own judgement. Once you see the editor go to WT:MEDRS and try to argue to change the guideline, you're in good shape and can get back to content. So, I want more WP:MEDRS checkboxes.

I love the idea of a "good journals" list: "We both have recent review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals, but my journal is on the 'good journals' list and yours isn't? Oh, well maybe you can find an article from a journal on the good journals list to support the content you're proposing, here's the URL for the list, I'll be here to discuss it with you when you find one." Yes, I want the list, but for it to be effective, it has to be published somewhere, independently verifiable, and with WP:MEDRS's blessing, otherwise it'll just be "my" list. Maybe we can float that idea somewhere?

And a13ean: Yes, agree, what I'm looking for is more necessary conditions. Zad68 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this idea, and the problems with meshing scholarly publishing with the Misplaced Pages parrot-the-sources model. Let's look at the TACT trial, an ill-begotten and disastrously run randomized clinical trial of chelation therapy in heart disease. The results were recently published in JAMA (PMID 23532240), which would be on anyone's "good journal" list. But the editors seemed to realize that the study was uninterpretable; they published a defensive editorial along with the paper in which they said they published it to, among other things, reward the "courage and persistence" of the study leaders in completing the study despite protests that it was unethical and scientifically unsound (). JAMA also took the highly unusual step of publishing an editorial by Steve Nissen explaining in detail why the study is scientifically worthless (or, as he put it: "Unfortunately, the efforts of these investigators fell short of the minimum level of quality necessary to adequately answer the question they sought to investigate." )

So JAMA apparently perceived some benefit in publishing even an admittedly highly flawed clinical trial. But for Misplaced Pages's purposes, the study appeared in JAMA and thus becomes gospel, more or less. MastCell  20:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but let me take this back to the purely practical perspective I'm coming from. (As a side note, of course the particular TACT trial article you identified is WP:PRIMARY and so it shouldn't be a problem to keep it out of our articles, although if you're pointing to a particular bit of article editing based on it, I don't know the backstory there. But I understand that it's possible for a stinker meta-analysis or review article to get published in JAMA too.)

My model for what I'm talking about: The disease is that there are many "motivated" editors who want to introduce content into articles based on inappropriate sources. Its symptom is editor-hours wasted arguing with them. WP:MEDRS is a great drug cocktail that's an intervention which is pretty effective at minimizing the symptom, but I'd like it to be even more effective. As with any intervention, there are side effects and unintended consequences. It's common for an intervention to be described as having a cost/benefit analysis like, "each year, out of every 100,000 women, 124 will develop breast cancer; without treatment X, 50 will die; with treatment X, 20 will die from the cancer anyway, and 2 will die from side effects of the treatment itself." (These are just bogus numbers for illustration.) Is the intervention worth recommending?

I get that an unintended consequence of a "Good Journals" list will be the occasional argument over a bad secondary source published in a Good Journal, and that argument will be exacerbated by the fact that the article was published in a Good Journal. Mitigating this argument is: 1) How much worse will the argument really be just because the article is in a Good Journal? It would be a difficult argument anyway, and I'd probably end up notifying WT:MED regardless. 2) How often does a Good Journal publish a bad secondary source? If they do, how long will it be before they retract it or update it? 3) How often does a Good Journal publish a bad secondary source in a subject area that's contentious enough to attract difficult editors? If a Good Journal publishes a bad secondary source, but its topic is covered in a relatively quiet article, we simply remove it without argument. It's only a problem if it's a contentious article. 4) Given that the normal case should be that Good Journals most often publish good secondary sources (they're Good Journals after all), how much arguing time will be saved?

So the bottom line question is, would adding a Good Journals list to the WP:MEDRS cocktail be a net benefit? I'm still thinking the answer is Yes and would like to move forward with it. Zad68 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The problem with a 'good journals' list is that it's more complicated than that. Any review is a good source if you're writing about ODDD, even if it's in a horrible journal, because there simply aren't that many sources out there (worldwide prevalence: 100 patients). But a review about heart disease in Blood (journal) is not better than a review about heart disease in Heart (journal), and both of those ought to be on your 'good journals' list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think these examples are more or less out of scope for the utility of the list we're talking about... If Blood (journal) and Heart (journal) are both Good Journals, then the Good Journal list isn't going to help (or hurt). If the two review articles covering ODDD are both not on the Good Journals list, then the Good Journal list isn't going to help (or hurt). Where it could help is: What if there's something a review article says about ODDD in a non-Good Journal, and a review in a Good Journal contradicts it, or puts more qualifiers on it, and you have a motivated editor at that article advocating for the use of the non-Good Journal? The Good Journal list would minimize the amount of arguing you'd have to do. That's the idea. Zad68 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the scale of the problem is that we're looking to solve, and whether this solution would actually be worth the new and different troubles and overhead it would create. For the sake of avoiding confusion, what we're really talking about is a way to broadly dismiss references to papers, including review articles, published in fringe alt-med sources, yes? (And thereby bifurcate talk page discussions about whether or not a particular study meets the requirements of MEDRS into a matched pair of debates about 1) whether or not a particular journal should or should not be on the Good Journals list, and 2) whether or not a particular article should be granted an exception – either allowing inclusion in the absence of, or rejecting in spite of – its Good Journal status.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ten, pretty much. Here's a specific example of the kind of thing I'm hoping to head off: Is green tea helpful against cancer? PMID 20156139 is a 2010 review article titled Merging traditional Chinese medicine with modern drug discovery technologies to find novel drugs and functional foods published in the MEDLINE-indexed journal Current Drug Discovery Technologies, which is published four times a year in the United Arab Emirates. Oddly enough the authoring team is based out of Rutgers...how they ended up in that journal, I don't know. The lead author is Rocky Graziose, a grad student still going for his PhD, see his CV here (no offense to Rocky). The article talks up "Traditional Chinese Medicine" and has a "cancer chemoprevention" paragraph on green tea and discusses the "molecular mechanisms of the cancer chemopreventive effects of tea polyphenols". I could very well see someone trying to use this to source content along the lines of "Green tea protects against cancer."

In the other corner, PMID 19588362 is a 2009 Cochrane review (which is actually referenced by PMID 20156139) and is much more equivocal, "There is insufficient and conflicting evidence to give any firm recommendations regarding green tea consumption for cancer prevention." At the article Talk page, the argument over the content would start off "Well PMID 20156139 is a more recent MEDLINE-indexed review article so we should use that one." It would start heading in the direction of a "compromise" of citing both in the Misplaced Pages article side-by-side, with the grad student's article in Current Drug Discovery Technologies given equal weight as Cochrane. With a Good Journals list, it'd be "Well that journal isn't on the list but Cochrane is."

I am not suggesting a comprehensive list of "Good Journals"! I think the best bang for the buck would be to keep the list small and limited to only the journals with the highest levels of support for inclusion. This will reduce false-positives and minimize time fighting over them. I'd also like to point out that we actually have already started this list - WP:MEDRS already mentions Cochrane by name, and it is in effect the Good Journals list. I think we'd find this list most effective limited to maybe a dozen of the most well-recognized and respected journals. Zad68 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is that we end up with a too-rigid framework that punishes us in unexpected ways when a crappy paper ends up in a 'Good' journal. (We all know it happens; MastCell gives a good, current example with that JAMA paper. Andrew Wakefield's epic fraud appeared in The Lancet. Don't get me started on some of the crap that's made it into PNAS.) By trying to put a too-friendly, too-quick, or too-simple user interface on the front of MEDRS, we will get stuck in situations where editors – not just POV-pushers, but well-meaning non-experts – start to mistake the checklist for the policy, and the tick marks for a reasoned rationale.

It looks like you're already well on your way to putting together a cogent, coherent argument for why one source is better (or worse) than another in the particular instance that you have at hand; sometimes there just isn't a good substitute for biting the bullet and showing your work. And sometimes we fight the good fight, and we lose—for a while. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I know when I'm licked. If I can't get all you disbelieving skeptics on board with the greatest new idea since cold fusion (which totally works by the way, you just have to prime the flux capacitor correctly), well then Misplaced Pages will just have to suffer along in the Dark Ages until one of you numbskulls gets an apple dropped on your head...

It isn't that I can't make the "my journal's article is better than yours" argument, it's just I'd rather not have to! I understand the unintended consequences risk, but I think if it were possible to run the the math out on it, we'd find it's possible to curate a small list with an overall net benefit to the project. Anyway, without some WP:MED heavy hitters backing it enthusiastically I'll drop it for now, but thanks for considering. Zad68 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI / Mea culpa

I added your sig to the closure, as we generally do - hopefully this will be viewed as helpful; if viewed as intrusive, please accept my apologies and let me know. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Adam9389

Hi. If you have a moment, could you check on the contributions for Adam9389 (talk · contribs)? He is changing the link to liberalism in many articles to modern liberalism in the United States. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. In and of itself, I don't think that's necessarily a problem. It may even be a more appropriate wikilink in many cases. Are you seeing anything problematic? MastCell  04:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I just wanted an independent reviewer like yourself. :) Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Immediate action needed re Adrian Dix

Here we go again - a meatpuppet has waited its turn, on an account created April 9, the day you blocked "them", and has re-inserted the POV tone and also used POV cites to conflate this into Undue weight even more than last time; they think they're smart by having someone who can bypass the protect by getting an account to "riper". See my comments at User_talk:Bearcat#SOCK.2FPOV_activity_on_Adrian_Dix; I"m not sure the page is on fullprotect, if it is, it's going to need something stronger. I obviously can't be the one to act here - on the Sun's article in the comments section things have gotten ugly against me, not that I'm losing but they're pulling out character assassination now, "which is what they do".....For a day or two I've been wondering about Misplaced Pages itself issuing a press release to balance the falsehoods in the Sun article, including the stated-as-fact that I'm on the COI noticeboard (which I'm not) but someone with blatant COI who has also deliberately misportrayed and scapegoated me in the article he wrote after joining Misplaced Pages to write it. He's away for two weeks, who cares really, he's just a shill pretending to be a saint IMO, the backfire on this is the Casinogate article that's bound to emerge, which doesn't make "them" look good at all once the facts are told. IN the meantime, there's been POV activity on Christy Clark.....I'm not sure where you are, but she's who Dix is running to replace; blankings of information there are common, as on other articles related to the BC Lib side when unfavourable facts/cites are made......but does that become a headline? Anyways, I'm sure you know the right course of action to take here; but this is getting ridiculous.....I can't revert those edits now, all that will do is cause a chorus of "he's at it again" from the monkey show.Skookum1 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Jbmurray got to it........and I was wrong, "not a meatpuppet", the editor in question has 15,000 edits as User:Reolute pointed out to me; I'd only looked at page one and hadn't had my coffee yet (it's morning here). Still after 15,000 edits to make a completely POV and nossensical/reflexive edit is highly questionable for any experienced user; I remember that name on other POV edits, I can't be bothered to investigate their history but this one post alone indicates a highly POV agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it's been taken care of, more or less. MastCell  04:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Paid editor discussions here and there

A common counter-charge that is often used somewhere during the MANY discussions about COI or paid to edit situations is that those that oppose paid editing are a small but very vocal minority within the Misplaced Pages Community...just some fringe group whose position is out of date and easily ignored or discounted. Does that position have any basis in fact or is it just the stated wishes of Pro-Operative supporters? Is it possible that, in fact, WP reality is the opposite...that supporters of operative editing are in the minority but just more vocal? The vast Silent Majority is unaware of any problem. Has there been any poll or study done to provide some idea as to where the common editor of WP stands on the issue of Paid to Edit? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it's not really possible to gauge the level of support for a proposal among all Wikipedians. Project-space discussions attract a very small and self-selecting slice of the editorial population. Increasingly, we've got a lot of editors whose participation here is mostly or totally limited to arguing about project-level issues, without any meaningful participation in article-space (I could name a few names, but that would just piss people off, and I'm sure you can think of examples readily). Basically, we've been overrun by armchair quarterbacks, who happily lecture others on the meaning of various content policies without any actual experience in applying them. We even had a (now-ex-) Arbitrator who was prone to sanctimonious pontification about civility, but whose own civility rapidly disintegrated when he found himself involved in a content dispute. But I digress.

To answer your question, I don't think there's any way to truly assess "the community" stance on paid editing. I don't think it's safe to assume that there's a Silent Majority who actually take the issue seriously (although it's comforting to believe that there is). We're stuck with trying to convince the small minority of editors who actually spend their time arguing about project-space issues. Most are sort of a lost cause and make snap decisions based on various poorly-thought-out abstract principles or personal grudges, but there is a small but influential persuadable middle. For example, if I can't convince Risker that I'm right, then I usually start to question whether I am right, or at least whether my powers of articulation are failing me. And there are other people like her - people with whom I often disagree but who are intellectually honest and open to serious discussion. The trick is identifying them and ignoring people who are clearly operating on a knee-jerk, spinal-reflex level, and who contribute about 90% of the verbiage in project-space discussions. MastCell  18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of pocket

"If I had a nickel for every time a knock-down-drag-out fight develops over a controversial categorization, I'd have several dollars." Wow, sad. Picturing MastCell glumly turning out his pockets. Here's a crisp five-dollar bill for you, don't spend it all at once! The butler ironed it fresh this morning. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for the charity, but maybe you haven't heard: in the U.S., poor people all have microwaves, air conditioning, sports cars, multiple TVs, and at least one XBox. So save your $5; I'm too busy finishing Dark Souls to get a job. MastCell  04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I had heard, I read all about it in a book that made a great impression on me. I should be looking out some more recent treatment of the subject, do you know of anything good? Bishonen | talk 16:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

You mean besides the groundbreaking report from the Heritage Foundation telling us how lucky and overprivileged the American poor are? That seems to be the last word on the subject as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Incidentally, my favorite portion of that report points the finger at unmarried mothers as the root cause of poverty:

Today, out-of-wedlock childbearing—with the resulting growth of single-parent homes—is the most important cause of child poverty... If poor women who give birth outside of marriage were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

See, all they have to do is get married and they would immediately cease to be poor, presumably through magic. It's interesting that the report identifies unplanned pregnancy as a major cause of poverty, but curiously fails to advocate for greater access to contraception and family planning services as a solution in favor of coercing pregnant women to get married.

Anyhow, to answer your question seriously, I'm not aware of anything more recent in the vein of Nickel & Dimed (a book so dangerous that conservative activists in North Carolina viewed its content as unsafe for impressionable incoming college students. In fact, they called the book "intellectual pornography with no redeeming characteristics", which makes it sound much better than it actually was).

Savage Inequalities was a fascinating and depressing read, but it's more than 20 years dated at this point. Fast Food Nation touched on some of the same themes as they relate to a specific sector of the economy. Bushwhacked is, obviously, dated, but is well-written and contains some thought-provoking descriptions of the lot of the poor under GWB, at a time when the concept of workplace injuries and the entire field of ergonomics were dismissed as "junk science" designed to enable people too lazy to do an honest day's work.

I don't really read those sorts of books anymore, maybe because they're too depressing? Now I mostly just read medical journals and the occasional long-form article in the New Yorker or the Atlantic. Although I've been thinking of picking up one of those flashy new editions of The Great Gatsby with Leo DiCaprio on the cover (). I'm tired of the old cover, and Daisy Buchanan's eyes staring mournfully at me from the bookshelf. MastCell  18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

My username just looks odd in blue, after seeing it in red for so long... Yobol (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. But be careful - every now and then, I'm just about to revert one of your edits - because reflexively reverting redlinked accounts is justifiable in Bayesian terms - and then I'll notice it's you and hold off. MastCell  18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh come now, you don't have Username as dimension in your parameter vector, with a value for "Yobol" near 1 for predicting the outcome "Should NOT be reverted"? Zad68 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He's still on probation as far as I'm concerned. :P MastCell  18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please block Special:Contributions/DrDrake100

Hi, sorry for interrupt, Special:Contributions/DrDrake100 changed unsourced music genres (actually it's a music style), such as David Bowie's 1999 album 'Hours...' and 2002 album Heathen, both actually are rock music albums. He accidently added styles as genres in other infobox, such as art rock and experimental rock, which are styles but influences.

Anyway, block him with no expiry set (unlimited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.172 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem, as the account appears to exist solely to make unsourced changes to musical genres and has persisted despite multiple requests to stop. I've blocked the account. MastCell  16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

MastCell, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Process

Hi MastCell. I responded a bit impulsively today in the heat of the moment in the thread that alleges misrepresentation of sources. I sort of wish now that I'd held off, since I really appreciate your suggestion that we get back to the process we started. I think that's a good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. But since you're here, I want to ask you something. Our content on the purported health benefits of Transcendental Meditation is heavily influenced by editors affiliated with the TM movement. Do you think that raises questions about bias (either conscious or unconscious) in our coverage? I think the best practice (one that is recommended, but not demanded, by WP:COI) would be for editors with close connections to the movement to participate in talkpage discussion, but for independent, unaffiliated editors to manage the actual editing of article content.

I'm not a big fan of analogies, but let's say that our coverage of an antihypertensive drug from Merck were dominated by a small group of single-purpose accounts closely affiliated with Merck. That situation would rightly raise concerns about our ability to present accurate and unbiased medical information. I see a similar problem on the TM articles, at least as far as they intersect with medical claims. Do you?

Finally, I'm sort of disappointed in the lack of restraint shown by TM-affiliated editors. Frankly, there are a number of Misplaced Pages articles, both medical and biographical, which I avoid because I want to manage any potential conflicts of interest on my part. These are areas where I believe I could undoubtedly improve our coverage, but I recognize that my connections (which are not financial, but rather personal or professional) would potentially bias me. So I don't edit those articles, as a simple but healthy form of self-restraint. I sort of wish that some level of introspection would take place here so that people wouldn't need to beat the drum confrontationally about it. MastCell  17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)