Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kilgour-Matas report

A GA Review of Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China is taking place, and the question of splitting out the section Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China#Falun Gong allegations: 2006 into a standalone article has been raised. This will be a controversial move as there are people who have objected to the allegation and corresponding report being a standalone article, and have insisted on merging it back into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. I support the content being moved into a standalone article, with a summary left behind, as currently this one allegation dominates the article. Added to which the allegation and the report have gained enough media attention to meet notability guidelines. My proposal is to create the article Kilgour-Matas report, leaving a summary behind, and to immediately open a discussion on WP:AfD regarding the notability of the topic. The version I would use is this one, and to update it with pertinent amendments made to Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China, using the images that are in that article. Your comments, suggestions, and involvement in this is welcomed and encouraged. SilkTork *YES! 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the location of current discussions? --JN466 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere formal yet. I copy the discussion that has taken place so far on my talkpage. The only people I have approached have been yourself, Ohconfucius and Dilip rajeev. SilkTork *YES! 10:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your message. I would have to once again look at the available sources covering those report before deciding whether I would support a stand-alone article. The Organ transplantation in China article was already seriously unbalanced by the FLG allegations and the K&M reports, I feel there the NPOV problem with the suggested version is magnified ten-fold. The principal problem is over-reliance upon and over-use of the report itself, a self-published source. The section which describes the different strands of evidence are excessively verbose and not summarised. In fact, I feel it should be kept to the same brevity we would expect from the plot synopsis of any film or book. It can be supplemented by the reactions reported in the press. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach. I looked over User:SilkTork/Kilgour-Matas report after posting to you and the others, and I must confess I was rather daunted by what I saw. There is actually a fair amount of work to be done. I had remembered it somewhat differently. I thought I had transferred the content over to Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China at some point, but I must have been thinking of something else. SilkTork *YES! 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, long time no read. What is the current status with regard to creating the standalone article? --JN466 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It is being discussed. Having looked at User:SilkTork/Kilgour-Matas report, I feel that a period of tidying that up would be needed before it could be moved into mainspace. I have a couple of GA reviews I have been dragging my heels on that I need to finish off before doing any work on it. SilkTork *YES! 10:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Thanks...

I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your defense of me at the CC arb case, on the PD page. Thanks for your efforts. ATren (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, ATren. --JN466 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Human Sexuality Barnstar

The Human Sexuality Barnstar
Nice work on the Creampie article.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cptnono, much appreciated! --JN466 01:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I clicked on it and was like "Where did those sections and RS come from?" I assume AVN was one of your edits. Nice touch.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. My wife remembered reading about the story at the time, and found it incredibly sad. I was glad to find that source. --JN466 02:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

WP:BELIEFS

A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Low Sea. (Goodness, it was a long time ago!) I'll keep an eye. --JN466 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Monckton

Actually when you removed your question about sources I was researching a reply. The short answer is that this is a claim that he has repeated in his articles and speeches for several years now and this can be confirmed from his own writings as published in prominent newspapers.

A longer reply will have to wait until I have access to a more powerful communications device than this telephone. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I had five minutes to google it, and realising that sources mentioning his "world government" theory are actually quite plentiful, was trying to save other editors the time. Thanks for your response. --JN466 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Prop 5

Let's start with organising the text into 3 concise paragraphs. The proposal 5 needs to be reorganised like prop 7. Prop 5 doesn't flow well. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources...? Maybe this sentence can be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That sentence contains a very important qualification: "Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons." For these areas, the media are all we have -- if a notable biography subject dies, or marries, or is taken to court; if a politician loses or wins an election, we would want to cover it, and we'll have to rely on the media in those areas. We wouldn't be able to write anything without them, as the first scholarly treatments would only come months or years later, or never. Media are as valuable for those areas as science sources are for science in the sense that we simply cannot dispense with them to do what we want to do. --JN466 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Other reliable sources include... I suggest you rewrite the sentence in my sandbox. The sentence needs to be tweaked or there will be future problems on numerous medical and aternative medicine articles. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Media sources meet WP:RS but not WP:MEDRS if there is a better source available. QuackGuru (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Even Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular_press allows that "On the other hand, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article." I tried to copy part of that wording in proposal 5, so it would be consistent with MEDRS. --JN466 04:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I merged both proposals together. QuackGuru (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It is ready now. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to leave V alone instead of prop 5 because the text is difficult to follow and conflicts with MEDRS. Prop 7 is too long and complicated. I think everyone can live with 8 because it is concise and contains the best parts of both versions of prop 5 and 7. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how proposal 5 does conflict with MEDRS, but you may see something I don't. --JN466 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Every part of the sentence must comply with MEDRS. Parts like "equally valuable" fail MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording in MEDRS, as quoted above, is "can be a good source". I guess you could propose changing "Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources" to "Quality mainstream media can be a good source ..." --JN466 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
(Proposal 5) Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons.
(Proposal 8) Quality mainstream media sources can be used for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons.
We can sit here and go word by word and I could show you what are the problems in detail with both 5 and 7 but proposal 8 does resolve the issues such as with the phrase can be used rather than equally valuable. I started with proposal 5 to make prop 8. Instead of continuing to try to fix the many problems with 5 my proposal to fix 5 was with prop 8. I was extremely careful with every word. If the community supports 5 MEDRS may eventually become meaningless. V is a policy page. MEDRS is only a guideline. I suggest you take a serious look at prop 8 again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Jenny and autism

Hi. FYI [1] The relevant part is in the 2nd paragraph.

"In the past year, those concerns have been flamed by celebrities, such as comedian and former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy, whose son is autistic; she has appeared on television to insist that vaccines cause autism."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; so there is a scholarly source on it as well. --JN466 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Format

Hope you don't mind that I made a small formatting adjustment to your post here. Dreadstar ☥ 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, mate. I admit it looks tidier :) --JN466 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Just call me Mr. Tidy.. ;) Dreadstar ☥ 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We're complementary souls then. You should see the state of my desk. :) --JN466 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

wikileaks

Hi, you removed {{wikileaks cat}} from Scientology.[2] I'd like to know your reasoning for this, and also alert you to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Wikileaks. --John Vandenberg (chat) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember that edit. It would have been either WP:LINKVIO/WP:ELNEVER (linking to material hosted in violation of copyright) or WP:ELNO (linking to open wikis; wikileaks isn't really an open wiki, but I'm not sure I knew that in early 2009). Might have been a combination of both – the http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Scientology link is broken, and I don't recall what was there at the time. --JN466 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/October&oldid=1091515347"