User:Valjean
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
My history here
"Yes, I've been around a long, long time.
Yes, I've really, really paid my dues."[1] — B.B. King
I started here as an IP editor in 2003, before we had reached the 200,000 articles milestone on February 2, 2004,[2]
and finally registered an account on December 18, 2005, 19 years, 94 days ago.
Valjean is my third username.
My fingerprints are still in our most important and fundamental policies and guidelines,
so I must have done something right.
Transparency: My media diet
Our purpose here is to give free access to
"the sum of all human knowledge"
that is mentioned in reliable sources.
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
— Jimmy Wales [3]
"A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge,
written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?"
— Richard Cooke[4]
"If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed."
— Baseball Bugs [5]
That literally means ALL information, not just facts.
That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc.
We document the existence of it all.
We are inclusionist by nature.
If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here.
That doesn't mean we will include it, just that we should consider its suitability for inclusion.
It might be suitable for one spot, but not another.
Although we don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way,
we still document its existence.
If a topic is never mentioned in any RS,
then it's not notable enough for an article or mention.
Read How Wikipedia Works
Truth versus Verifiability
Many think that Wikipedia only publishes what is true,
or that it publishes all truth. No, not all things that are
true are easily verifiable, and we also document things that are not true.
We must avoid any original research when trying to write what is true
as we need to maintain the distinction between TRUTH and VERIFIABILITY .
We are mostly concerned with the latter as documenting what is true is not always easy,
and people's ideas of what is true are often subjective and conflicting.
Fortunately we can usually verify what is true.
If an important idea is not verifiable, then it is likely not objectively true.
Verifiability is truth *
"It is commonly cited that the minimum
condition for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
However, for Wikipedia's purposes, verifiability is truth.
We can't call something true without evidence,
and our standard of evidence is verifiability from reliable, published sources."
(Copied from Maddy from Celeste)
(* It's actually not that simple. Here is an interesting discussion.)
"Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality.
In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement is an incorrect statement."
JZG 21:25, 14 November 2019
Belief Without Evidence is Wrong
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
— William Kingdon Clifford
"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence,
and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants,
would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering."
— Bertrand Russell
About Lunatic Charlatans
"What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans
is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't."
— Jimbo Wales [6]
Jimmy Wales's opinion of the former president
"If President Trump tweets something that is nonsense,
we don't accept him as a source in Wikipedia for random things he says on Twitter.
We have a group of admins who are very strict and firm on what can be entered....
The president's power does not extend to shutting down or threatening social media platforms.
That's illegal. It's not something he can do. We do have the First Amendment in the US....
The worst-case scenario is that they don't have the courage to tell him to go away,
that they begin to adapt their policies to his whims because he's a lunatic."
— Jimmy Wales, May 28, 2020[7]
Trey Gowdy on "Republican kamikazes" and election deniers
In spite of all the shenanigans Gowdy has pulled,
he does have a brilliant legal mind. Here's an example of great reasoning:
"So much for elections having consequences or respecting the will of the people
or whatever platitudes uttered but only when convenient,"
Gowdy continued. "This small band of Republican kamikazes are
convinced Donald Trump won the presidency in 2020 with 47% of the vote
yet somehow Kevin McCarthy lost the speaker's race with 85% of the vote."[8]
Just follow our rules
As long as you follow the rules here, you'll be okay, but if not, you're screwed!
When you find one of my mistakes
I shot an error in the air,
It fell to earth I knew not where,
Until some people wrote to tell
Me where on earth my error fell.
A few of them in rage profound
Berated me on my home ground.
While others of a kinder bent
Politely questioned my intent.
But most were fans who wrote to say
They loved my books, though by the way,
That whizzing error split their clout
And I'd be wise to cut it out.
Dr. Ellen Mandell / Gabaldon
(with apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow [9])
Proper communication
The importance of proper communication and response to queries for explanations is important.
Refusal to respond and explain can only lead to problems.
In the context of what seemed to be a BLP violation, which requires immediate removal,
I removed text that seemed to violate the BLP policy. The editor who made the content objected,
berated and abused me, accused me of all sorts of evil
but refused to explain what they really meant, to which I
(after long and frustrating attempts to get clarity about the matter) responded:
"Let me get this right. You assert I'm guilty
of an "incorrect interpretation of what" [you] "write"
but won't explain how I have misinterpreted you,
and that this refusal by you is somehow my fault.
Is that right?"[10]
The point? If you write something, you have the burden of proof to defend it. Silence and stonewalling are not legitimate options.
Wisdom from ScottishFinnishRadish
"At the very least you should try to back off long engagements
with editors that you're not going to convince to your point of view.
The chance of attracting uninvolved input
decreases with every level of indentation in the discussion."[11]
My tenure here
I started editing as an IP in 2003, before the English Wikipedia had 200,000 articles. My fingerprints are still in our most important policies and guidelines.
96.9% completed
Awards (scrollable)
Just hold your mouse pointer over each barnstar to read each greeting.
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer) StoptheDatabaseState 20:58, 11 December 2006
This notification appeared on my talk page:
This was posted on the article's talk page:
This was posted on the nominator's (MeegsC) talk page:
It was also featured for three weeks (18-20) at the Danish Portal.
Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft (cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- See also
- User:Certifiedallergist
- Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Certifiedallergist/Archive
Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation -- 19:15, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Happy editing :),
Thanks, –Davey2010 Talk 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for quality articles such as Spinal disc herniation, Charlotte's web (cannabis), Flora and fauna of Greenland, Vis medicatrix naturae, in service from 2005, for encouragement , for changing your username to your hero, for "Let freedom ring!"
You are recipient no. 2368 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
My articles, essays, and other creations
A basic citation template I like to use
| A basic citation template I like to use | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Here is a basic citation template I like to use:
Template: <ref name=" ">{{cite web | last1= | first1= | author-link1= | last2= | first2= | author-link2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref>
Unique ref name that is informative: Use the last name(s) of the author(s) and the publication date. Scientific publications and Yadkard do this. When there are four or more authors, I list the first one in the ref name and then add et_al:
Now, look at the product below in the collapsed "Sources" box. You'll see that the ref name has no effect on the actual result. All authors are still listed. Editors who follow this practice can independently find a source, format the ref, and end up with nearly identically formatted refs, with the same ref name, thus reducing the likelihood of reusing the same source. This is a very common problem. When a source is used in an article, it should only be used with one ref name. The URL should only appear once. When I have time, I will often search the page for that URL and then harmonize the refs so there is only one full ref, and the rest will only use the same and best ref name.
|
Countries I have visited
| Countries I have visited |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have visited the following 26 countries and lived in six of them: |
What's in a name? Valjean, the hero of Les Misérables
| What's in a name? Valjean, the hero of Les Misérables |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Heroes: More about Les Misérables and Jean ValjeanJean Valjean used several pseudonyms: Monsieur Madeleine, Iltime Fauchelevent, Monsieur Leblanc, Urbain Fabre, or 24601 and 9430 prisoner numbers.
Obviously, social justice lies close to my heart. John Rawls is a renowned exponent of the principle of Justice as Fairness. Other heroes of mine: Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Victor Hugo, D. H. Lawrence, Douglas MacArthur, Adlai Stevenson, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama Concerts
Links
Actors who have played Jean Valjean in moviesValjean was born in 1769 and died in 1833 (aged 64). Full name: Jean Valjean Aliases: Monsieur Leblanc, Monsieur Madeleine, Ultime Fauchelevent, Urbain Fabre, Prisoner 24601, Prisoner 9430.
Actors who have played Jean Valjean in the 1980 musicalLes Misérables vs the BibleI know that this is offensive to some very religious people, but if I had to choose a book to give someone, and I had to choose between the Bible and Les Misérables, I'd give them Les Misérables. The principles of honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, kindness, selflessness, simplicity, heroism, and social justice found in the Bible are portrayed in a much clearer manner in Les Misérables. Jean Valjean was completely transformed from a hardened criminal into a virtuous man by the kindness and grace of Bishop Myriel. After his fateful meeting with Myriel, Valjean modeled his own life after the character of Myriel. We all need heroes, and they should be chosen wisely. I used to own the book, CDs, and DVDs of the movie and musical in several languages. I even found an ancient 12-volume leather-bound set of Les Misérables (De Ulykkelige) and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Copenhagen, a great city for old books and cultural events, where we also saw the musical in the round Østre Gasværk Teater, with its revolving stage. A great experience. My wife and I especially loved the 2019, six-part Masterpiece Theatre adaptation:
I especially loved the DVDs for the 10th Anniversary "Dream Cast" concert at the Royal Albert Hall and the 25th Anniversary concert in The O2 Arena, but lost them, along with everything else, in the 2018 Camp Fire. After the fire, my dear daughter, who knew how much that book meant to me, gifted me a nice copy of the book. A home without any books is a sad place, so that book started my now-limited and budding collection of favorite books. All my medical textbooks, in at least five languages, are gone. My long shelf of different Bible versions also burned well. I have no plans for resuming any large-scale collecting of books. Now I'm very selective. I used to lug over forty, very heavy, banana boxes of books around the world whenever we moved. (I have lived in six countries.) No more of that! Now I am picking very carefully, and Amazon, eBay, Goodwill, and local thrift stores and used book stores love me. I now have almost 800 books in my library. For some, that's a small number, but for me it's fine as they are chosen carefully. I still watch out for new additions. |
Username change (more about Jean Valjean)
| Username change (more about Jean Valjean) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
On 14:30, March 23, 2020, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean. I have desired a username change for some time, and after some waiting, it has finally happened. Jean Valjean is the hero of Les Misérables , my favorite book, which I have read in several languages. His virtuous character is worthy of much admiration and emulation. He is portrayed as a remarkable man combining incredible physical strength with remarkable virtue. I'm also a fan of the 1980 musical. I also considered a username associated with Atticus Finch, another hero of mine, but Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean were already taken. Valjean was available, so I chose that one. My old name
Rangifer = Reindeer, and a bull reindeer is a noble stag.(*) Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) is the term used in Europe (including Greenland). It is also known as the caribou when wild in North America, and is an Arctic and Subarctic-dwelling deer, widespread and numerous across the northern Holarctic. A bull reindeer is a truly majestic animal, and reindeer/caribou "may well be the species of single greatest importance in the entire anthropological literature on hunting":
Please read Reindeer hunting in Greenland , which I authored. I have personally harvested 16 reindeer. Excellent flavor and very lean meat. Firearm: SAKO cal. .30-06. Shortest distance to target: under 7 meters (two deer were curious and approached to stare at me while I gutted another deer). Longest distance: 150+ meters. Most deer in one day: four. I have had the pleasure of having my wife accompany me on one hunt, and sharing in all the details of the hunt, IOW sweat, lots of climbing and hiking, nerves, caution, patience, excitement, blood and guts, carrying, etc..
|
Things that "Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility"
| Things that "Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility" |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fascinating stuff! Well worth the read.
|
The Four Freedoms
| The Four Freedoms |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. |
Notable quotes
| Notable quotes |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:MastCell/Quotes
| User:MastCell/Quotes |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:MastCell/Quotes Awesome! -- Valjean (talk) PingMe 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) |
Trump's dubious relationship to truth
| Trump's dubious relationship to truth |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump
We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts. Here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):
Trump's falsehoodsSee also: Donald Trump § False statements
As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"[7] because he's a "habitual liar".[8] In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".[9] [10] [5] Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency.[5] According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office,[2] 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post,[11] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day.[12] After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.[13] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."[14] Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."[3] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine , wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."[15] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[16] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[16] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims.[17] [18] [19] [20] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[21] [22] [23] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[24] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[25] Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."[26] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".[27] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."[28] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[29] [30] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York.[31] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[32] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[33] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[34] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;[35] [36] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[37] [38] [39] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[40] [41] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[42] [43] [44] A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".[45] The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."[46]
Fact checking TrumpTrump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."[52] Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."[70] As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:
|
Why Fox News should be deprecated
| Why Fox News should be deprecated |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
See the excellent information here: User:François Robere/sandbox/Fox News |
Opinion: How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information
| Opinion: How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game for use as sources (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject because of successful censorship, we must use other sources, usually partisan activist organizations whose POV can be cited as their opinion. The same thing which applies to pseudoscience and other fringe subjects applies here. If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. |
My attitude toward quackery and fringe articles
| My attitude toward quackery and fringe articles |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I can hardly put it any better than David Goodman (DGG) does on his userpage:
The attempts one sometimes sees by certain skeptics to AfD quack articles are often attempts at deletionism which violate the principles of the NPOV (which does not allow censorship) and notability (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to exist here). Since fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream POV, the basic POV of the quack view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. |
Vindicated regarding AE case and Quackwatch!
| Vindicated regarding AE case and Quackwatch! |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Quackwatch and I have been vindicated by the Arbitration Committee:
Do I have a COI with regard to Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett? No. A shared POV is not a COI. Having sent a few emails to Barrett and received no or unpleasant responses does not create a COI. I have never had anything to do with the website, and it's been over 12 years since I had anything to do with, or any contact with, a healthfraud discussion group or Barrett. |
My short block log explained
| My short block log explained |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
My short block log has some history that should be connected with it. Unfortunately it isn't possible to attach notes to a block log, so I do it here . |
Quotes. Let freedom ring!
| Quotes. Let freedom ring! |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." (1)Abraham Lincoln (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."John F. Kennedy And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land." (3)Martin Luther King, Jr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."Barack Obama |
| Thoughts on liberty, freedom and democracy |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us
It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us
It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the
It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the
It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and
Who gives the protestor the right to burn the flag. -- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC, Marine Corps chaplain
|
Spinal manipulation research collection
| Spinal manipulation research collection |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of helping to avoid duplication. If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. -- Valjean / talk |
Hope for Wikipedia as a reliable source
| Hope for Wikipedia as a reliable source |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following comment points out something that needs to be taken care of before Wikipedia can ever hope to be considered a reliable source by its own and other's standards:
|
What Wikipedia needs
| What Wikipedia needs |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Here's another interesting comment I found by chance. Note the significant wikilinks:
|
Some wise words: The problem with that ... (anecdotes are not evidence)
| Some wise words... |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
.. is you don't provide any sources. Anecdotes, like yours, are not evidence, nor is anything you said. Wikipedia is not about trying to determine the truth, but putting together an encyclopedia of stuff that other sources have amassed. Those who try to promote their agenda, their view, are against the NPOV which is the standard for Wikipedia articles. This is why original research is prohibited. If all the information is available, from all the credible sources, then that is the knowledge on a subject. Those who want to edit out sources, and decide what is true, rather than let the reader have all the facts, are trying to promote their view, not help build a free encyclopedia. You know who you are. Those who fight to restrict information, are the enemy of knowledge. Those who want to spin things their way, are the opposite of a NPOV. If CBS or CNN or any real News outlet does a story, and you think they are wrong, you don't get to delete the story reference. If another credible source disagrees, you put that in as a counter. I know, some idiots think they should be the arbitrators of what is allowed to be read on the Internet. They are not only stupid, they are small minded. To them, I always say, you are not the authority. You don't get to decide. Get a clue and quit trying to control information. It is not your job to censor the Internet. |
It should be easy to include reality here
| It should be easy to include reality here |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC) [24] |
An interesting compliment
| An interesting compliment |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Reading a comment like this makes me feel very humble and appreciative:
|
Skeptic quotes
| Skeptic quotes |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Science & EBM versus so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM)According to notable skeptics and physicians like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, James Randi, Marcia Angell, Phil B. Fontanarosa, George D. Lundberg, and Stephen Barrett, the concept of "alternative" is often being misused in a misleading form of marketing, implying something that is far from the case:
Other quotes:
Skepticism, logic, and critical thinking
|
My POV on NPOV
| My POV on NPOV |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. One must:
IOW, just tell the story without taking sides. When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately. One should:
This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV. NB: The reason that I have just labeled "truth" as "subjective & personal," is not because I don't believe some truths are objective facts, but because in controversial issues, both sides believe that their opinion is based on objectively true facts. Since "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and Wikipedia must not be used as a soapbox to "sell" various POV, then editors must stick to telling the "facts about both POV." Let the reader take sides after reading all viewpoints on the subject. In the end, readers will end up making their own decision as to what is the "truth" of the matter, and just like editors from various POV, those opinions will likely be at odds with each other. The following comment has been allowed to remain on my talk page because I think it's good:
The good doctor brings up a good point, because editors who are unwilling to "write for the enemy" are not capable of understanding or abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems. Writing for the enemy is an important mark of a good editor. There is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in a NPOV fashion just because they have a POV in real life. And everyone has a POV, now don’t they? But just as
My goal here (especially regarding chiropractic) is to contribute to the best article about chiropractic ever written. Most articles suffer from being one-sided. Skeptical articles write only from the skeptical viewpoint, and articles written by most chiropractors and associations naturally write from a promotional viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia deserves and requires much more. There is much to write about this fascinating subject, and readers should feel that they have been well-informed by the finished product. Wikipedia editors should consider it scandalous if a reader, after reading an article here, discovers totally new or unfamiliar significant information on the subject outside of Wikipedia. They should become so familiar with the subject here that they will not be surprised by, unprepared for, or unfamiliar with any issues or information outside of Wikipedia. They should be able to respond with "Duh! Didn't you know that already? I knew that because I always read Wikipedia first!" Another editor has commented:
Which inspired me to reply:
What can we conclude from all this? That the NPOV policy is not about preserving or protecting my POV, but about presenting all significant POV, which is what's required for making a great encyclopedia! |
Criticism and undue weight
| Criticism and undue weight |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
An interesting discussion found here: There is alot of debate in talk pages about handling a criticism section. I feel it is important to address this issue specifficaly. I think there needs to be a policy on how you address sections like this. --Zonerocks 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This form of "undue weight" is an inevitable result of the "notability" policy for inclusion. Some people and subjects are notable because they are notorious. This automatically results in a large amount of negative information, since most of the verifiable information from reliable sources is negative. Other information would be original research or from unacceptable sources. That's life. As long as the information is properly sourced and worded in an NPOV manner (simply presenting the POV, without advocating or attacking it), then there's no problem. For controversial subjects, with editors on both sides of the issue, this can still end up with an unbalanced article. In scientific and medical matters this is because the scientists usually have better sources and are better at presenting their arguments than the quacks, pseudoscientists, and true believers, who don't have very good sources (just anecdotes or hate sites), and whose arguments are often filled with logical fallacies. The way forward in such cases is as suggested -- to build up what's lacking, not to exercise bad faith towards other editors by deleting their hard work. Bad people or subjects should not be whitewashed by deleting valid and well-sourced information. Suppression of opposing POV is a very unwikipedian thing to do. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must allow presentation of both sides of any controversy. To leave out or suppress one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Valjean |
Alternative medicine critics
| Alternative medicine critics |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please help develop this. Use the talk page there and notify me. |
My Wikipedia Library
| My Wikipedia Library |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How to edit a page
| How to edit a page |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Excellent tips and tricks. |
Wikipedia:Five pillars
| Wikipedia:Five pillars |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
All of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be reduced to these five pillars that define Wikipedia's character:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view , which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.
Wikipedia has a code of conduct : Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 6,970,211 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.
Note This page describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. These principles predate the creation of this page. It is sometimes said that all or most policy is based upon this page, but most policy also predates the creation of this page. |
Wikipedia's principles
| Wikipedia's principles |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
How to: Help, Cite sources, Manual of Style, Style and How-to Directory, Wiki Markup, TeX, Utilities, Picture tutorial, Extended image syntax, Tables, Table help. Policies and guidelines: Policies and guidelines, verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, Assume good faith, What Wikipedia is not, Banning policy, Three revert rule.. |
Information for "User:Valjean" Namespace Totals
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valjean.
This user was identified as an awesome Wikipedian on March 24, 2020. 975
As of last count among active Wikipedians, this user is #975 by number of edits.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years (19 years, 3 months, and 4 days). Quality, not quantity. This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia. 309 This user has 309 watchers. 7.4 This user has 7.4 centijimbos. AS This user has Asperger syndrome. ESU 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. – Last update: April 2, 2024. This user is proud to be a Wikipedian. incl This user is an inclusionist . even This editor is an eventualist . admin- This user feels that criteria for adminship are generally too low <ref> This user recognizes the importance of citing sources . EW+ This user has experienced edit wars and doesn't wish involvement again. Please be civil; no personal attacks. This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive. <ref> This user would like to see everyone using inline citations . Please... This user seeks and destroys vandalism . This user is opposed to communism in both theory and practice. This user is anti-fascist who is against racist ideology of the Third Reich , Fascist Italy , NDH and Nedić's Serbia .
Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. We inform the masses about...attempts to brainwash them.[28] This user is autistic AS This user has Asperger syndrome. A relative of this user has autism . This user believes in tolerance for all viewpoints except intolerance. |
- Members of the Fifteen Year Society of Wikipedia editors
- Wikipedia autopatrollers
- Wikipedia pending changes reviewers
- Wikipedia rollbackers
- Autistic Wikipedians
- WikiProject Medicine participants
- Wikipedians interested in medicine
- Inclusionist Wikipedians
- Eventualist Wikipedians
- Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox
- Wikipedians interested in alternative medicine issues