This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TeaDrinker (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 9 September 2006 (→Barrett: crosspost reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:44, 9 September 2006 by TeaDrinker (talk | contribs) (→Barrett: crosspost reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to Misplaced Pages!
|
GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Modifying
Thanks
Thanks for finding the link. It sounded correct enough, but I couldn't find precisely that wording. Good you found it. Verifiability is important, especially in criticisms of living persons. Even then one must be careful.
Jimbo Wales has some interesting things to say about criticisms of living persons:
- "..... editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." - Jimmy Wales
- "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as , please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page." - Jimmy Wales
- Steve Bennett wrote:
- > I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the
- > impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not
- > guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"
- > information is better than none.
- Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. - Jimmy Wales
- Philip Welch wrote:
- > On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
- >
- >> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
- >>
- >> This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an
- >> eternal law. Early in Misplaced Pages's development, we took what we could
- >> get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
- Absolutely.
- We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.
- We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it. - Jimmy Wales
-- Fyslee 08:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Modifying
Usually it is not good to edit someone else's comment unless it contains personal attacks or incivility. If you do modify comments with personal attacks and incivility, usually you would put "" where the attack was. Read more: WP:REFACTOR. GeorgeMoney 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Barratt
Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've read your edits and find them well sourced; too bad some others have a specific point of view which causes them to delete factual and well documented statements. RalphLender 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see the same sort of problem on the article, Advocates for Children in Therapy, which has a loose connection to Quackwatch and SB. regards. RalphLender 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Second opinion
Hi NATTO, I have invited TimVickers and Peter_morrell to give their opinion on the Barrett page. FYI, I feel that they represent both sides of the spectrum with respect to alternative medicine. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi David. To make sure I understand: You have invited two editors, one at each end of the spectrum for a second opinion, I assume on the ABMS data. So now we have Fyslee, yourself and one of the two invited editors, an myself.... NATTO 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am staying out for a while since I have said my piece, but I am interested to hear their opinions. Tim and Peter are both working on the homeopathy article. Peter is trained in homeopathy, Tim is a scientist. They have both worked together to make the article as NPOV as possible. I thought it would be more productive to ask people who are familiar with the alternative medicine field. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, below is the message i left on their respective talk pages.
- Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:
- Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert. When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.(PDF).
- Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:
- There are two schools of thought here:
- The first is that the latter sentence is relevant to whether Barratt is a medical expert. It is verifiable data, no claim is made that the data supports the views of the critics or not, that is up to the reader.
- The second is that the latter sentence should be removed since it seems to be original research.
- There has been much discussion on this topic both currently and in the archive, one of many sections in the archive is here. I feel the discussion has reached a stalemate, although, possibly an injection of new ideas could lay this to bed so we can move onto other parts of the article. Thanks for your time.
Barrett
Howdy, I wanted to encourage you to discuss the changes you were making on the Stephen Barrett page. I put my reasons for reverting the changes there. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page, User_talk:TeaDrinker, if you need ot get in touch with me. Sincce I reverted it twice, I will give the obligatory link to the three revert rule. We are both bound by it, of course. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Teadrinker. Please stop reversing my edits without even taking the time to check the facts. This is a guerilla attitude and eminently biased. Please provide valid reasons. NATTO 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I realize, rereading my message, that I was unclear. I started a discussion on the talk page, here specifically to discuss the changes you made. I was trying to encourage you to contribute to that discussion, but realize now I did not include a link to it. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)