Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 18 March 2009

Thanks

Dear Matisse, Thanks for advising me about your nommo for Buckingham Palace. I've been out of action for a while and see that the period has just expired. Is discussion still live? Please reply to my talk page.FClef (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please help in upgrading the article. The discussion is still alive. All the above links are still relevant as the FAR goes on for quite a while, so your input would be greatly appreciated. The article should meed Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, which have been upgraded since the article's last FAR two years ago. Not being British myself, I find the amount of information considered "common knowledge" confusing, with much not explained and with so few citations given, and many of those just to the Buckingham Palace website; the lack of scholarly references is a disservice for such an import article for Britain. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thank you

Thanks for joining me at paleolithic diet. I was getting beaten down. It must have become a FA during the paleolithic era of Misplaced Pages before criteria were invented. Cheers :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It shows that all the discussion currently going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article criteria about upping the criteria to include stricter requirements for reference sources for FAs, (stricter than WP:RS) means nothing in the face of a blatant misuse of references, which I feel happened in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could not agree more. By the way with all those edits of your why are you not an Admin? And also you should come hang out around WP:MED more often. More people who understand refs are desperately needed. It often feels like we are fitting an uphill battle against those pushing pseudo science and unfounded commercial ventures or hate campaigns. Check out Fluoroquinolone toxicity for example. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Always bad when there is one primary, invested editor. But check out Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation where one editor is trying to remove the POV on the other side, legitimately from what I can tell. Unfortunately, editors are too quick to support sometimes. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Will give you a little of the background. Fluoroquinolone toxicity was the original article based on case studies and animal experiments plus a few petri dishes. I used this to make broad reaching claims in people. I came along and starting editing. After about 50 edit an editor reverted everything with no comments on the dozens of edits I had made. I therefore rewrote it at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones the term supported by the research and basing this entirely on review articles. User Literature is sort of half way between the two camps and is now rewriting FQ toxicity. This is now were we stand.

I did the GA review of water fluoridation and disagree with it being FA at this time. Still needs some work. Xaso is very reasonable though.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you weighed in on Water fluoridation as that editor usually gets articles through FA with no trouble (an FA regular) and it is only because Xasodfuih hung in there against the automatic supports and basically rewritten the article that that didn't happen this time. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swede Hanson (wrestler)

I wanted to thank you for your review on this article. I really appreciate you taking the time to do it, and I'm very sorry that I didn't have time to respond to the review. Things are calming down now, so I managed to make the fixes you suggested and have renominated the article. I certainly don't expect you to review it again, but I wanted to let you know that your time was not wasted, as your suggestions were very helpful and have been implemented to improve the article. As a fellow GA reviewer, I know all too well the frustration of picking apart an article only for no one ever to look at the article again, so I wanted you to know that this is not the case here. Again, I apologize for my lack of response and thank you for all of your helpful reviews. You are a true credit to WP:GAN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix LEAD

Do we want the prevented from drawing a salary example in the WP:LEAD. It has been at issue and removed before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the lead. I did not put it in the lead originally, I don't think. Rather, I think I changed its position in the lead so as to improve the flow. At one point I considered putting it in parentheses, but then I decided to move it to a more logical place. But it might be an unneeded detail in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you close to supporting? Do you have any thoughts on the Pete Williams issue in the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion and I don't know what the Pete Williams issue is. Ah, I see. I have to agree that using a journalist to support a view on the constitutionality of an issue is not very sound. He is not a constitutional lawyer, is he? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Pentagon spokesperson. Does that give him any credibility? The problem is that there are so few sources, that it is somewhat counterproductive to remove them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, what position is it that you perceive me to be taking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see this article reach FA because it is interesting and not something I knew anything about. I know you are a hard worker. But no, a spokesperson is usually a journalist and being a pentagon spokesperson does not have anything to do with constitutional law. I perceive you as taking the same view as Pete Williams - a pro Saxbe fix view. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually beleive the framers of the constitution would probably prefer if a Bentsen had to go back to a 1970 salary rather than 1988. I think it is a good fix but should be stricter. For a House rep like Solis, it serves little purpose. Why don't you take a shot at the language and I will watch as I have been doing. If I think it is clearly wrong, I will step in. I do not think Williams should be expunged from the article, but will defer to your editorial effort if it is reasonable as a neutral party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. But what about the weasel wording that was just added? - "though Hatch was believed to have been a major candidate" —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For Solis see First 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency. No one says it is settled. Historical tradition and legally settled are two different things. Where does Yates say that he thinks it should go back to day one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It was the O'Connor, John F. (1995) PDF that stated that. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did my super copyeditor just resign?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I continue to hope for your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find the article confusing. It seems like it is a political issue. Why is the appointment of Hilary Clinton being contested in court, if not for political reasons? Reagan did not appoint Hatch, although he wanted to, because his Attorney General nixed it. It seems far from clear that this issue has been settled with all sides comfortable with the outcome, reading through the article references that are online, like the one from Edwin Meese. It has never been to the Supreme Court. I am missing how it is not a political issue. What else is it? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about the constitutionality of the issue. In terms of political controversy there is none. Now Democrats and Republicans both use it and help each other use it. See the latest change to the beginning of the legality section and consider coming back to lend your assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will try to regroup and look at the article again. I do find it interesting. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "political controversy". Is not the suit regarding Hilary Clinton's eligibility politically driven? Or are you saying that it is purely legally driven? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is likely politically motivated. What we mean by political in the article is whether the Dems and Reps fight about the issue. If for example the Republican party were behind the movant in the case, it would be political in this sense. Feel free to work with the text as you feel is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We miss your industrious efforts. Apparently, you have decided against further involvement. We could use your support and hard work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to help more. Just didn't have the time yesterday! Probably today I will! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix Judges

There have been six Saxbe fixes executed and all have been for cabinet positions. A seventh should be on the way for Solis also a cabinet position. Judges have been considered in relation to the clause, but alternative nominees have always been put forward. The clause pertains to judges. Judges are civil officers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn you had a paragraph on several who served as judges and legislators during Washington's time. Maybe it was in one of your sources, like Meese. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference from the WHO

Wondering if you could give some comments at Talk:Obesity/GA2. I think the WHO should be quotable directly without having to prove their statements. However I have gone and done this by creating the page exercise trends. The reviewer continues to remove the quotes from the WHO.

"Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work. This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits."

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked through it all and I do think the reviewer on the harsh side to require such strict sourcing to pass a GA review. The GA requirements for sourcing are not that strict that the WHO article should not suffice. Surely the studies referenced by the WHO are backup support. The Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria require reliable sources only for "for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (On the other hand, in general I am suspicious of global statements made by WHO or anyone regarding observations that seem self evident or face valid, but where, in reality, a cause-effect relationship has not been shown.)

You could consider asking a question on Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations regarding this, as questions there are usually answered by User:Geometry guy who has some clout and shepherds the GA process in general, or asking User:Geometry guy directly on his talk page. I am reluctant to enter a comment myself, as the reviewer has the last say anyway and if you cannot convince him, I doubt my jumping in would help.

If the reviewer fails the article, I would recommend the Good article reassessment. Especially if you draw attention to the problem via Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations or User:Geometry guy, that process should go fast. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank. I think he might have just missed a number of the reference I have added.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gersony Report

Please see my response at Template talk:Did you know#Gersony Report. I am gob-smacked by the credibility challenge here - not that the findings were correct or not, but that the findings are asserted to exist. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your words. BanyanTree 10:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Prunier book, to which I do not have access, verifies the trip was actually made and it is used as a source on what others said the findings were. However, apparently Prunier does not address the issue of whether there was a written report. Most of the rest of the article is sourced to "Human Rights Watch (1999)" and "Purported 14 October 1994 cable from Shaharyar Khan to Annan and Goulding, subject heading "The Gersoni 'Report' Rwanda", hosted by webpages.charter.net (Alternative copy at rwasta.net)". This is not enough information for these to quality as reliable sources. The statement: "The contents of Gersony's findings were leaked to the international press, infuriating the RPF government" is sourced by the New York Times refers to a "report" and does not specify that the "report" was unwritten. Nor does the last source, as far as I can tell: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas P. Odom USA (ret.),Template:PDFlink, Small Wars Journal Volume 5, July 2006, p. 6-7. Reviews of the Prunier book say it is confusing to anyone without in depth knowledge of the Rwanda situation, and perhaps that is the case with this article. The sources verify that there was a free lance consultant hired by the U.N. to go to Rwanda and that the trip resulted in controversial "findings". However, whether nothing was ever put into "writing" is not verified, as far as I could tell. Are you saying it was all word of mouth? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. No, you're quite right. Prunier writes as if there is an actual report, while Des Forges specifies that Prunier was instructed not to write a report after the briefing with the government ministers. I've reworked the description to divide the two stories with extended footnotes. I had used Des Forges' work because she gives a bit more detail than Prunier, whose spends about 10 pages on background for RPF killings, of which the description of Gersony takes up only about a page.

I reconcile these in my head by assuming that a brief or preliminary deliverable was prepared for UNHCR, which prompted the diplomatic kerfuffle, and that an actual final report was what was stopped in Des Forges' account. Of course, neither source I have reconciles the apparent discrepancy so that's all my own theory and OR, which is why I didn't even attempt to try to explain it in the article. I personally do not believe that a report, in the sense of a polished and complete product, was ever finished. Gersony did field visits through 4 September, while Khan, in his purported memo, says he was informed of the findings on 14 September, after it had been bounced from UNHCR up to the Secretary General and back down to Under Secretary General Annan. There isn't a consultant in the world who can come up with something longer than a briefing memo and some powerpoint slides within a week of the end of research trip like that, and then only if they work like demons to make sense of their raw data. There simply wasn't time for a Gersony Report, with a capital "R" and without quotation marks, to be written. I had been hearing rumors about the Gersony Report for years, so I was quite surprised to realize while writing this article that there was no actual report.

Getting back to the hook, would "... that the "'Gersony Report", the controversial finding by United Nations contractors that the new government in post-genocide Rwanda had carried out systematic killings of civilians, was never released?" be acceptable? - BanyanTree 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, "never formally released"? And actually, that is unclear. Released to whom? The consultants were contracted to make a trip and undoubtedly they reported something to the UN, if the UN hired them. Consultants have to provide something in order to get paid usually. The article is very confusing. So, you are saying that the UN never released anything? (I would have to go back through the article and sources to clarify.) And are they obligated to release such "reports" always? Also, make sure whatever you do put in the hook is sourced by a reliable source. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"never formally released" seems alright to me.

Right, the findings have never been publicly acknowledged. The timeline is roughly - Gersony and his team do some research, and a week after finishing they send something about their findings to the UNHCR high commissioner. The UN freaks out that a report they commissioned is basically saying that "the good guys" of the genocide, whom the international community is throwing aid and money at, is carrying out massive targeted murders. The UN secretary general sends some high level underlings to Uganda to sort it out. Gersony briefs the UN and says that he totally stands by his findings. He then does the same brief later that day for the Rwandan officials, who deny targeted murders. The UN official position is that revenge killings are expected, but they're sure the RPF is not actually carrying out political killings, but that the release of the finding would be damaging to Rwanda (not to mention the UN, US and other countries that decided to back the RPF after the genocide), so they're going to stop the report from seeing the light of day and instruct the team that did the research never to discuss their findings. My assumption is that the consultants got their payment since the client changed the terms on the fly. So the UN never released anything from Gersony's research and only discussed it internally and with the Rwandan government. Someone leaked the findings to the media at which point the RPF denied everything while the UN rather cleverly kept repeating that there was no "report", which is technically true but avoids acknowledging the findings. Of course, as there is no report to read and Gersony and his team refuse to discuss it per their client's instructions, the Gersony Report quickly became a bogeyman in contemporary Great Lakes studies. Which is why I keep saying "purported" and "reported" in the article, since the sources are like 'Prunier talked to the former Rwandan Minister of the Interior to whom Gersony gave his UN-supervised presentation, and what the minister remembered about the findings a few years after the fact is..."

I'm really at a loss about how to clarify the article in a way that doesn't create false confidence in facts that would be controversial even if they were discussed openly, as opposed to having another layer of controversy on if the report exists and if the purported findings of that report say what people think it says. I'm not surprised some book reviews report confusion. - BanyanTree 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one way is to rely completely on your sources. "As related by XYX, Gersony did such and such. However, a conflicting version says that ABC actually happened instead." It is not up to you to reconcile conflicting reports. You just describe what the sources say happened, giving more weight to the more reliable sources rather than the advocacy group or information they put forth. I think all the qualifications in your lead are Words to avoid, unless specifically sourced, and could be called Original research. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the proposed hook. Have your concerns about the accuracy of the hook been addressed? It's running off the end of the queue... - BanyanTree 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The hook needs to be able to be found within the article, either in the lead, or in some other easily recognizable place, and it needs to be sourced. I can't find the hook in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No

Thats not how it works if the source doesnt meet[REDACTED] standards besides that you can go on the source and it says in the opening paragraph he is biased on his ranking. If you think it should be put back in then try discussing it on the page maybe somebody will take your cause up but until they we dont add information without a VALID source.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isnt a valid source end of discussion i dont know how you think you saying it is would make it so ive fixed my mistake and just removed the 411mania part.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolters

When you get a chance, I've started the discussion at Talk:Rudolf Wolters as to whether we think we are ready for FAC. I think we might as well put it up and see who salutes. Maybe some of the Speer magic will rub off on Wolters. Unhappily, the Lane nom failed due to lack of consensus, there were no opposes, but only one support after a month, and I'm considering my options there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the Lane article. Go for Rudolf Wolters! A different kettle of fish. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Notes to self March 18)

• • (these are notes only and not the original posts.) *Posted to User:Risker:
  • Response

1. ^ "WHO: Obesity and overweight". World Health Organization. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
2. ^ "WHO | Physical Inactivity: A Global Public Health Problem". WHO. Retrieved February 22, 2009.
3. ^ Ness-Abramof R, Apovian CM (2006). "Diet modification for treatment and prevention of obesity". Endocrine. 29 (1): 5–9. doi:10.1385/ENDO:29:1:135. PMID 16622287. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)