| Revision as of 12:47, 20 July 2007 editAvb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,658 editsm →Repetition: m← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:23, 20 July 2007 edit undoAvb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,658 edits →Repetition: mNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ::see my answer above. Part of the answer is that the QW juggernaut, based largely on popular press, could steam roller individuals with the instigation or aid of local and state health boards, as well as defamation threats, for the last quarter of the 20th century with then unknown frequency (it was slightly known in passing from QW statements to popular media, but is pretty much unindexed). Going through old, unindexed microfiche (or film) is extremely slow to recover the sources when much of the alternative press is actually much better (and some of it is not and has been settled). This is where we need to establish good faith on thin sources, because what is perceived as biased, activist stonewalling gets really, really old and the factual content of the article is anemic, perverse or bleeds.--] 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | ::see my answer above. Part of the answer is that the QW juggernaut, based largely on popular press, could steam roller individuals with the instigation or aid of local and state health boards, as well as defamation threats, for the last quarter of the 20th century with then unknown frequency (it was slightly known in passing from QW statements to popular media, but is pretty much unindexed). Going through old, unindexed microfiche (or film) is extremely slow to recover the sources when much of the alternative press is actually much better (and some of it is not and has been settled). This is where we need to establish good faith on thin sources, because what is perceived as biased, activist stonewalling gets really, really old and the factual content of the article is anemic, perverse or bleeds.--] 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, ]. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. |
:::Although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, ]. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. I think it would be fair to say that I like all information once it's sourced. Reliable sources are our sine qua non. We're moving towards an encyclopedia entirely constructed from reliable sources. BLPs are our first concern in this respect. Jumping -- I would be if I said that these sources ''do not exist''. Also, it's policy to differentiate between editor opinion and verified material. "Editor opinion" is not derogative in any way; editor opinion may well be correct, but it only becomes verified material when reliable sources are provided. Regarding your criticism of QW, I wouldn't know; I asked for sources in order to learn more. All I'm getting here is more editor opinion. I would view what you and ] are saying here as vastly more useful in building an encyclopedia if verified in reliable sources. Your demand for good faith on thin sources is consistent with one of the more prevalent WP philosophies (eventualism) but it is 100% against policy in BLP information. As to telling me your opinion on the current article, that ''is'' getting pretty old; I certainly won't bore you iterating mine. ] 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Summary of answer by ] and ]. Please don't edit, this is my view. == | ==Summary of answer by ] and ]. Please don't edit, this is my view. == | ||
Revision as of 14:23, 20 July 2007
 Archives |
|---|
Good Luck
Somehow I think there is going to be a distinct lack of "cooperation". Shot info 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Repetition
Hiya. I am satisfied with L'clast's answer to your question. That you repeat your question again and again and then finally chase me to my talk page with it is hardly civil. ॐ Metta Bubble 05:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought you had missed the question. It now appears that you had not missed it but that someone else has answered it for you. It would have been nice and collaborative if you had told me that. Instead you ignored the question and its repeat on the article talk page. Since this had become an issue between you and me, and not relevant to the discussion on the talk page, and since it is hard to miss posts to one's own talk page, I posted the question to your talk page, worded most civilly. I find both your handling of the question itself and especially the above post to my talk page not quite matching the collaborative stance expected from Wikipedians. Avb 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB? I said that I am having trouble tracking down some of QW's and its authors' *direct statements* for more complete answers. Also it seems very curious that QW doesn't have a good bibliography for its articles since notable individuals with a high batting average frequently have them on the web, even posthumously from admirers.
- There are a *lot* of examples on QW related authors and entities that involve SB either directly or subsequently, but I have to admit is (unnecessarily) time consuming to *link* and reference the obvious for instant gratification that has been ignored anyway by some in the past.--I'clast 09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved the following comment from the next section to the discussion here. -- Avb 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- see my answer above. Part of the answer is that the QW juggernaut, based largely on popular press, could steam roller individuals with the instigation or aid of local and state health boards, as well as defamation threats, for the last quarter of the 20th century with then unknown frequency (it was slightly known in passing from QW statements to popular media, but is pretty much unindexed). Going through old, unindexed microfiche (or film) is extremely slow to recover the sources when much of the alternative press is actually much better (and some of it is not and has been settled). This is where we need to establish good faith on thin sources, because what is perceived as biased, activist stonewalling gets really, really old and the factual content of the article is anemic, perverse or bleeds.--I'clast 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, WP:V. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. I think it would be fair to say that I like all information once it's sourced. Reliable sources are our sine qua non. We're moving towards an encyclopedia entirely constructed from reliable sources. BLPs are our first concern in this respect. Jumping -- I would be if I said that these sources do not exist. Also, it's policy to differentiate between editor opinion and verified material. "Editor opinion" is not derogative in any way; editor opinion may well be correct, but it only becomes verified material when reliable sources are provided. Regarding your criticism of QW, I wouldn't know; I asked for sources in order to learn more. All I'm getting here is more editor opinion. I would view what you and user:Metta Bubble are saying here as vastly more useful in building an encyclopedia if verified in reliable sources. Your demand for good faith on thin sources is consistent with one of the more prevalent WP philosophies (eventualism) but it is 100% against policy in BLP information. As to telling me your opinion on the current article, that is getting pretty old; I certainly won't bore you iterating mine. Avb 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Summary of answer by user:I'clast and user:Metta Bubble. Please don't edit, this is my view.
Question to Metta (diff):
- You wrote on Talk:Stephen_Barrett: "being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea?
I'clast's answer (diff):
- That could be a decent partial summary of QW's (etc.) self described activities since a number of published writings in the 70's and 80's involving "attacking fraud" that involved individuals of different opinions & professions. (does anybody have a decent *full* bibliography link of QW and Stephen Barrett writings, especially a chronological index? It does seem hard to actually track down the old QW related historical writings, usually not indexed in normal guides & indexes, almost like they are hidden in plain sight. The lack of indexing and biblio seem especially odd for such notable "mainstream scientific" and medical scrwritings.)--I'clast 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I must say I find I'clast's edit summary (which I had missed) informative. Anyway, this answer asks for such sources: I'clast specifically tells us he has no sources. Since Metta says to be "satisfied with L'clast's answer," the answer now also means that Metta has no sources. It would have been better if Metta had admitted that straight away, apparently having seen my question and Iconoclast's answer days ago. I was truly interested in what looked like inside information or ancient history I was not aware of and could not locate myself when I tried. I will continue to keep in mind the possibility that there may be such information somewhere and that it might be provided one day. For now, however, for all practical editing purposes, we cannot use it and have to treat it as the collective opinion of a number of editors who often operate as a team and answer questions for others.
Summary of the answer provided by user:Metta Bubble and user:I'clast: Barrett has written this and there are reliable sources; they don't have these sources now but say they will be able to provide them later. This answer confirms what I suspected and is fully satisfactory to me. Avb 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)