text:
National Collegiate Players

National Collegiate Players, also known as Pi Epsilon Delta (ΠΕΔ), was an American co-educational honor society for participants in collegiate theatre. It was founded in 1919 at the University of Wisconsin, finally going dormant around 1990.

History
Pi Epsilon Delta was established at University of Wisconsin on June 8, 1919, by students who were interested in theater. The first group contained seventeen men and women, including four faculty members. Its first president was Ray E. Holcolm. Pi Epsilon Delta was established as an honor society to recognize and encourage collegiate theatre. Its activities included supporting dramatic performances, playwriting, and the study of drama and encouraging leadership in these fields.

By 1922, Pi Epsilon Delta had a total of five chapters, including added chapters at Washington University in St. Louis, University of Minnesota, and Northwestern University. In June 1922, Pi Epsilon Delta merged with Associated University Players to form National Collegiate Players. Associated University Players was founded in 1913 at University of Illinois and had chapters at Ohio University, University of Washington, and University of Oregon. All but its chapter at the University of Washington voted to join the merged organization.

The merger was facilitated by two faculty members at the University of Wisconsin, Gertrude Johnson, professor of the speech department and grand chancellor of Pi Epsilon Delta, and Merle R. Raines, an English instructor and grand secretary of the Associated University Players. Pi Epsilon Delta was an honorary society, while the Associated University players were a theatrical production group.

The ideals and scope of the new National Collegiate Players were identical to Pi Epsilon Delta's. However, all chapters were allowed to produce theatrical shows. The merged organization's name was adopted due to resistance to continuing the form of a Greek letter organization, viewed as another secret order.

The first chapter installed after the merger was Iowa State University in April 1923. The society established the Junior Collegiate Players for students at junior colleges at Stephens College in 1949. It also sponsored a Summer European Theatre Workshop for its members every two years starting in 1959.

By 1962, the Players had initiated some 9,000 members. The National Collegiate Players became an honor society when it joined the Association of College Honor Societies in February 1963.

In 1977, the Players had 44 active chapters and 44 inactive chapters. It had initiated 15,000 members. Its headquarters was located at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. The National Collegiate Players went dormant around 1990.

Symbols
The Pi Epsilon Delta membership emblem was a key that included the comedy and drama masks of ancient Greek theater and the Greek letters ΠΕΔ. Founding member Frances Allen Tucker designed the key. Its motto was Palamay en Drama or "Art in Drama".

The National Collegiate Players maintained the key and motto of Pi Epsilon Delta. Its publication was Players, which was first published in 1924.

Membership
Students were admitted to the National Collegiate Players based on a point system for achievement in acting, construction, costuming, directing, playwriting, stage design, stagecraft, and the completion of courses in dramatic arts, speech, and literature at an accredited institution. This was a modification of the point system used by Pi Epsilon Delta before the merger of the two organizations.

Only upper-class women and men were eligible for membership which was limited to seven to twelve active members per chapter. Applications for membership were voted on by the local chapter and approved by the national council, thus providing both national and local recognition for members.

The Players also initiated honor members who had made significant contributions to academia or the theater profession.

Chapters
Following is a list of the chapters of the National Collegiate Players. Inactive institutions are indicated in italics.

Collegiate

 * Mary Wickes (Washington University), actress
 * Anne Simley, academic and founder of the theater department at Hamline University
 * Haila Stoddard (University of Southern California), actress, producer, writer and director
 * Jon Whitmore (Washington State University) chief executive officer of ACT and president of Texas Tech University and San José State University

Honorary

 * Judith Anderson, stage and film actress
 * Henry Fonda, actor
 * Helen Hayes, actress
 * Cedrick Hardwick, stage and film actor
 * Charles Laughton, actor and director
 * Raymond Massey, actor
 * Agnes Moorhead, actress
 * Tyrone Power, actor
 * Basil Rathbone, actor

title: National Collegiate Players


text:
User:Brittanysanders/sandbox

What is my website and how does it work?
Hello, I am the owner of the domain starrynightsandfireflies-com.webs.com. We are all about contributing to the breast cancer foundation, and we have a webstore available, 100% of the commission goes to the breast cancer fundraisers. We blog about society, entertainment, and much more. If you would like to contribute to this website and to the commission of our web store, feel free to email me at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thank you. Sincerely,

Brittany

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Brittanysanders/sandbox


text:
User:Jodiwng17/be bold

Being bold is important on Wikipedia. ABCDEFG JODI NG. Being bold is important on Wikipedia. Hello

title: User:Jodiwng17/be bold


text:
Talk:Saint Ambrose Catholic School

Untitled
I believe it is notable enough for a wiki article. does the poster of the tag care to discuss? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly not a lot of people read the talk pages. Anyway it may be better to develop content about the school at Cheverly, Maryland and/or a page about the schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. It should only get a separate article if there is significant coverage in secondary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint Ambrose Catholic School


text:
Talk:Modern Physics/Gravity

Consider moving into this chapter.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit_derivation
 * and part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Brans-Dicke theory
I would suggest removing the subpage for Brans-Dicke theory from this introductory text on Modern Physics to instead be a subpage of the General Relativity Wikibook, as one of several alternatives to Einsteinian relativity. Nicole Sharp (discuss • contribs) 00:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modern Physics/Gravity


text:
Chang Hao

Chang Hao may refer to:

 * Chang Hao (Go player) (born 1976), Chinese Go player
 * Chang Hao (historian) (1936–2022), Taiwanese historian and sinologist
 * Chang Hao (windsurfer) (born 1990), Taiwanese windsurfer
 * Chang Hao (synchronised swimmer) (born 1997), Chinese synchronised swimmer

title: Chang Hao


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baatar

The result was delete. Tone 10:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Baatar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This purported disambiguation page contains only WP:Partial title matches and actively inhibits Search. It does not perform the function of a disambiguation page: "a non-article page that lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title" (WP:DPAGE). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete - at face value. There are some near misses, but mostly just reaches. I would support a redirect to Batar (disambiguation) or another target, if someone can come up with a better rationale than me (ie, it's almost spelled the same). ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  13:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, since a) this is pretty much just a dicdef, and b) in any case there's not one single instance of that word on the list. Could redirect to Baghatur, which this page references, and where it says baatar is the Mongolian version thereof. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as improper disambig. --Lockley (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baatar


text:
User:Tomas123urz/sandbox

cl
Teams entering at the first round qualifying:
 * Abingdon United
 * AFC Aldermaston
 * Ascot United
 * Holyport
 * Milton United
 * Sandhurst Town
 * Shrivenham
 * Wallingford Town
 * Windsor
 * Wokingham & Emmbrook
 * Woodley United
 * Aylesbury Vale Dynamos
 * Amersham Town
 * Buckingham Athletic
 * Burnham
 * Chalvey Sports
 * Flackwell Heath
 * Langley
 * Long Crendon
 * Milton Keynes Irish
 * Newport Pagnell Town
 * Penn & Tylers Green
 * Risborough Rangers
 * Winslow United

Teams entering at the second round qualifying:
 * Reading City
 * Holmer Green

Teams awarded a bye to later rounds:

 * Binfield
 * Bracknell Town
 * Didcot Town
 * Hungerford Town
 * Maidenhead United
 * Reading
 * Thatcham Town
 * Wantage Town
 * Aylesbury United
 * Beaconsfield Town
 * Chalfont St Peter
 * Chesham United
 * Marlow
 * Milton Keynes Dons
 * Slough Town
 * Wycombe Wanderers

Reading
Notes

title: User:Tomas123urz/sandbox


text:
Kaboli, Razavi Khorasan

Kaboli (, also Romanized as Kābolī) is a village in Mazul Rural District, in the Central District of Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 583, in 151 families.

title: Kaboli, Razavi Khorasan


text:
Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... It now has such content. --Besselfunctions (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary Rendition for US citizens
Does the current NDAA contain the clause that allows the US government to detain private citizens of the US under §§ 1021-1022 (that was added to the NDAA in 2012), which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40.[7]?ReveurGAM (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


text:
Alosa curensis

Alosa curensis, the Kura shad, is one of the species of alosid fish endemic to the Caspian Sea basin. It is found in the southwestern part of the brackish sea-lake, near the mouth of the Kura River, Azerbaijan. But generally this is a poorly known species.

title: Alosa curensis


text:
ふたん

Noun

 * 1)  A burden, charge, responsibility; to bear a burden, charge, responsibility.
 * 2)  A special cloth laid down to cover the path traveled by the procession during a shrine dedication or transfer.

title: ふたん


text:
Talk:Denzil Douglas

Original synthesis and other violations
The criticism section of this article is replete with original synthesis and it must be removed. For example; bringing a source that indicates an increase in the murder rate in particular years, but that makes no mention of the article's subject, and then making the connection IN the wikipedia article would be forbidden as original research/synthesis even if it was the most beatific and hagiographic description possible. As it is trying to cast the article's subject, who is still alive, in the negative, makes it all the more imperative that it be removed. No criticism or praise can be added without reliable and verifiable sourcing that does not require original synthesis on the part of wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not acceptable as RS for BLPs, I believe, thus the entire criticism section was improper. I am certain there can be found some reliable and verifiable criticism; he is a politician. What was there now is not acceptable. Most of the article for that matter is still a mess. -- Avi (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denzil Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224234444/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Denzil Douglas


text:
Mitane, Akita

Mitane (三種町) is a town located in Akita Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 14,936, in 6729 households, and a population density of 60 persons per km2 The total area of the town is 247.98 sqkm.

Geography
Mitane is located in northwestern Akita Prefecture, bordered by the Sea of Japan to the west.

Neighboring municipalities
Akita Prefecture
 * Noshiro
 * Oga
 * Hachirōgata
 * Gojōme
 * Ōgata
 * Kamikoani

Climate
Mitane has a humid continental climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa) with large seasonal temperature differences, with warm to hot (and often humid) summers and cold (sometimes severely cold) winters. Precipitation is significant throughout the year, but is heaviest from August to October. The average annual temperature in Mitane is 11.1 °C. The average annual rainfall is 1527 mm with September as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 25.1 °C, and lowest in January, at around -1.0 °C.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Mitane peaked at around the year 1950 and has been in steady decline since then.

History
The area of present-day Mitane was part of ancient Dewa Province, dominated by the Satake clan during the Edo period, who ruled Kubota Domain under the Tokugawa shogunate. The area was organized into towns and villages within Yamamoto District, Akita with the establishment of the modern municipalities system in 1889. The town of Mitane was created on March 20, 2006, by merging the towns of Hachiryū, Koto'oka, and Yamamoto. The town name comes from the Mitane River that flows through the three original towns. After the merger, the town hall was set up in the former Hachiryū town hall, but the center of transportation and economy is the Shikado district of the former Koto'oka town.

Government
Mitane has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 15 members. Mitane, together with the city of Noshiro and the other municipalities of Yamamoto District contributes four members to the Akita Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Akita 2nd district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
The economy of Mitane is based on agriculture. The town produces over 90% of the junsai sold commercially in Japan. The center of transportation and economy is the Shikato district in former Kotooka town.

Education
Mitane has five public elementary schools and three public middle schools operated by the town government. The town does not have a high school.

Railway
East Japan Railway Company - Ōu Main Line
 * Koikawa - Kado - Moritake - Kita-Kanaoka

Noted people from Mitane

 * Takashi Miura, professional boxer

title: Mitane, Akita


text:
Erwin Hahn

Erwin Louis Hahn (June 9, 1921 – September 20, 2016) was an American physicist, best known for his work on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). In 1950 he discovered the spin echo.

Education
He grew up in Sewickley, Pennsylvania. He received his B.S. in Physics from Juniata College and his M.S. and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He served as an enlisted sailor in the United States Navy and was an instructor on radar and sonar.

Career and research
He was professor of physics, from 1955 to 1991, and subsequently, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. Hahn was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1971. In 1993 he was awarded the Comstock Prize in Physics from the National Academy of Sciences. In 2013, Sir Peter Mansfield said in his autobiography that Hahn was "the person who really missed out" the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the principles of spin echoes. He also received the 2016 Gold Medal from the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM). The award, ISMRM's highest honor, was given to Hahn for his creation of pulsed magnetic resonance and processes of signal refocusing which are essential to modern day MRI. He died at the age of 95 in 2016.

title: Erwin Hahn


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian

The result was   delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is completely a work of original research. There is already an article on Chang Dai-chien. Any useful info here can be added to that article. As it stands, this is not really an article but a list of apparent techniques without context. I don't see how this could be rewritten -- and it would need to be completely rewritten -- into a useful article.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chang Dai-chien is an article of artist's biography, nevertheless Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian is an article of artist's painting styles and related special research. They are two completely different subjects. There should be no reasons to combine them into one same matter of a less useful and less meaningful article. Besides this article is not an orphan at all, as lots of other articles including Chang Dai-chien link to it. Meantime the article of Chang Dai-chien wrote on a subject of Forgeries (only minimum percent) of Zhang Daqian exclusively and nothing else concerning his painting techniques and other maximum contributions. Therefore these are two articles with two apparently different points of view. It's better just to link them together, not to combine them together in a state of confusion. Orionandhsu (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete cannot really stand on its own, either delete or work into this -> imo it belongs there -> Chang Dai-chien ...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete as seen above...Modernist (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete or Merge into Chang Dai-chien. I  Never  Cry  20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete into Chang Dai-chien if there's anything that can be saved. Delete if there isn't. Silver  seren C 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, and must not merge. Articles created/expanded by Orionandhsu/Orionwebmuseum/OrionHsu (all likely the same person) are highly suspicious and have been reported to the administrators here.  The only reference the article cites is a Chinese website which appears to be written by Orion Web Musuem, likely the same person as Orionandhsu.  It is original research, and given that the author does not know the difference between technique and subject matter or style, it cannot be regarded as scholarly and cannot stay anywhere in wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Hzh. User:Orionandhsu, who created the article, appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming.  -Zanhe (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All info of value should be in the artists page Seasider91 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Chang Dai-chien article can indeed serve to be expanded as User:Orionandhsu suggests, but within the constraints of standard wikipedia practice which I believe the Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian entry is problematic. I recently added a brief, sourced, section in the Chang Dai-chien entry in an attempt to begin to expand the non-forgery section of his career. So, the intent of the editor is solid, but the practice is deficient. Hence, my recommendation to Delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) (signature added one day later - sorry)


text:
Talk:Frederick Mitchell Hudson

Expand
Note there is lots more in the source https://newspapers.com/image/625059114/?terms=Frederick%2BMitchell%2BHudson that could be used to expand the article. KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frederick Mitchell Hudson


text:
Talk:Meg Patterson

Removal of verifiable material
A User has removed the following sentence, despite it being properly referenced: She established that electro-acupuncture analgesia, usually applied to control pain post-surgery, could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. Mais oui! (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROFRINGE. We can't state such things in Wikipedia's voice without very strong sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Dave Marsh's biography of The Who is a bit old (well, about 35 years old), but aside from one or two howlers (like getting Keith Moon's date of birth wrong), it is the best source going for everything related to the band. I cited it extensively for The Who, Tommy (album), Who's Next and Quadrophenia, all of which are good articles, and using it here to cite that he went to the clinic is absolutely fine in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a good source for asserting a dubious therapy is effective. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, Townshend and Clapton never went anywhere near smack once they'd visited her - that sounds pretty effective (for them, at least). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Testimonials are the lowest form of evidence. And Wikipedia does not imply medical effectiveness on that basis because it would be very foolish. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you've got a source that shows some heroin addict tried Dr Patterson's therapy and snuffed it, present it here. Actually, I think we're talking at cross-purposes, at the moment I'm just talking about sources that show notability, full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a reversed burden of evidence. All I'm saying is we cannot assert or imply a treatment is effective without WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims
An assertion like "Mainstream scientists have dismissed NET as quackery" gives a strong impression that the therapy has been subject to studies by mainstream science, and found it faulty, but the source provided does no such thing - in fact it sais quite the opposite, that mainstream science has NOT studied the phenomenon. The wording is thus misleading. The general tone of the source is one of providing anecdotal evidence in favor of the treatment; IMO using it to support calling "quackery" because of an in-passing comment largely misrepresents the article. I don't deny that the therapy might have been viewed as pseudo-science, but a much better reference will be needed to claim that in Wikipedia's voice.

The only part of the article that could remotely support this claim are two convoluted sentences ("You would be forgive n for thinking the doctor a quack. This is precidely[sic] how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy"). This would require require WP:SYNTH to arrive to such general claim, as it only supports mentioning that some unidentified mainstream scientist have expressed an opinion that this is quackery, based on its superficial features (the weirdness of expecting electric currents "behind the ears" to heal). Definitely not proof of scientific consensus" describing this as quackery, I'm afraid. Diego (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "This [quackery] is precisely how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy" gives us it plain. And of course it's obvious. Using different "frequencies" of shock to cure different substance addictions, is obviously bogus. We are obliged by WP:PSCI to view this from the mainstream perspective. Alexbrn (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, and where are the references that provide this mainstream perspective? We don't write articles from what is obvious, nor interprete sources to make general claims by specific assertios by its author. Instead we follow the wording of the sources as closesly as possible, which the current article as written doesn't do. Diego (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious pseudoscience may be labelled as such. But here we have the luxury of a source. We must paraphrase sources to avoid WP:CLOP and the source clearly states that mainstream medicine viewed NET as quackery. It's really very simple. I have posted to WP:FT/N about this. You are warned that DS applies here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wasn't aware of that arbitration result (BTW, shouldn't that radical exception to WP:V be included at WP:BURDEN?)
 * Given that the source doesn't explain in any way how they come to that conclusion regarding the views of mainstream medicine, it cannot be considered a reliable source with respect to the established scientific consensus. I'm content with describing it as "what an article New Scientist said", per WP:ASSERT, though; even when I think that is not the primary focus of the source, and using it to support the claim is not given proper weight to its contents in the article. Diego (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wasn't aware of that arbitration result (BTW, shouldn't that radical exception to WP:V be included at WP:BURDEN?) I don't think so because we don't need sources for obvious things like the earth going round the sun, or that giving different kinds of electric shock corresponds to a cure for addiction to particular substances. That's where we're at and you're editing against sense. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it say it is the scientific consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ASSERT we shouldn't attribute this, as it has the non-neutral effect of making it seem "just one opinion." It's obvious quackery and accordingly we have a source saying that's what mainstream scientists think. No need to shilly-shally: we call it what it is. I see has now removed this from the lede in direct contravention of Wp:PSCI. We are obliged to make it prominently clear that pseudoscience is pseudoscience, not just leave it hanging. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets make this easy, can we have three RS saying that the consensus is she is a quack?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think there's a source which uses the word consensus, but the New Scientist source says: "You would be forgiven for thinking the doctor a quack. // This is precisely how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy." [my bold]. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We still need multiple RS if we are to not have to attribute this to the new Scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It's such a niche thing we're lucky to have any serious sources on it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because one source saying it is pseudoscience does not make it so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes no sources are necessary. It's bogus, we've a good source saying so, and we are obliged to relay that by policy. You're inventing rules. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Couple of points, first ArbCom doesn't override WP:V. As much as they would like to think they do, there is nothing in the annals of Wikipedia that could or should give them that power, or even make it seem that way other than their own poor choice of wording when writing decisions.
 * Second, just say what the dang article says, and get over it... because that would give an encyclopedic overview. No one took it seriously. She was repeatedly turned down for funding. She finally got funding for a clinic and reported positive results (which btw New Scientist make sound vaguely positive but don't explain very well). Someone else tried to replicate those results and failed. She disputed the accuracy of the failed replication. If possible, find those original studies and cite those, as well as her published letter, in addition to the New Scientist piece. There's not really a point in arguing about it. Just find the sources and say what they say.   G M G  talk   18:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 Pretty much this is what needed, yes. And of course if a sentence in the article is WP:CHALLENGEd for verifiability or for not supporting what the article says, you need a better source. Diego (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to suppose the New Scientist is unreliable for the claims made. Sources are not unreliable just because as editor says so. I agree: let's just says what the sources say: no one took this seriously; mainstream medicine called it quackery; there is no evidence it works. Simple. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can probably use New Scientist just fine. I'm not saying they're unreliable. I'm saying that so far the source has been pretty lazily used. Write an actual section based on the story they give, rather than taking two snippets out of a two page article and trying to piece together a sentence that gives comparatively little actual information. And as I said, it would help to get the original publications also, rather than referencing someone who references someone else, because this would increase the extent to which the content is verifiable by readers. Presumably the replication study was published, and we know her response was. I assume her original study was published as well. Unfortunately I have little to no scholarly access.
 * Also to Alex, there isn't strictly no evidence. From what it looks like, there is just bad evidence, namely a single study with a fairly low sample size produced by its primary proponent which failed to be independently replicated. And that's pretty much what we should say. Yelling pseudoscience and calling it a day is mostly just half-assed, and doesn't really benefit our readers much as to understanding what exactly went on to establish the evidence or lack thereof.  G M G  talk   19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the wording we had in the lede was "... there is no good evidence that it works" which is a fair summary. In the body we should mention the one trial that failed to establish its efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They's not one trial. There's two trials and three publications. There's the one by the originator, and there is the failed attempt at replication. Both are relevant, as is her objections, since they were good enough for the British Journal of Psychiatry to feel the need to publish as a rebuttal, and good enough for New Scientist to mention as well. If you've got more sources that fail to consider all three publications as pieces of the story, then we can do the DUEWEIGHT on it, but right now we got one, and so that's where the weight falls.   G M G  talk   20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source mentions one study. Patterson's attempt to contact her ex-patients is not really a trial is it? (was it published?). At any rate none of these things are WP:MEDRS. Just so long as we're clear in the lede and body that this stuff isn't taken seriously, we'll be neutral. Until today the article entirely lacked that view, and had instead celebrity endorsements. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's at least three publications that at least I have access to, in order of decreasing woo: Stress Medicine, The Journal of Alterntive and Complementary Medicine, and Subtle Energies. All of these published after the New Scientist piece. And if we want to talk about strict MEDRS, the New Scientist piece is probably old enough so as to be entirely useless for either confirming or denying. Looks like we need better sources all around. Still not totally sure if her original study was publisher or not. I'm still assuming it was for there to be a replication attempt, and it would have been stupid of her not to.  G M G  talk   21:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need a WP:MEDRS to report what the medical establishment thought, since that is not WP:Biomedical information. I don't think there was an "original study", just an attempt to contact patients to get some figures (perhaps when pressed for evidence? I don't know). Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's playing entirely too fast and loose with the policy, akin to We're not saying smoking causes cancer, we're saying most doctors believe smoking causes cancer, so it's not biomedical information. That's a trick from the woo camp, and we ain't having none of that. (We're not saying patients get better, we're saying patients feel better.)
 * Anyway, I asked IRC who have a lot better access than I do. The 1980 story might be from this book (also originally published in 1986), but I don't have access to it either, I just know it was published in 1986. Other than that it's dead ends all around, but if the best thing we have is a 30 year old article, we're not working with very much.  G M G  talk   22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a trick from the woo book at all: it's a matter of (uncontroversial) fact that the medical establishment rejected this stuff. We report it accordingly. Beliefs & views are not WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * As I said at WT:V, each individual subject needs to come up with a standard by which we judge whether it is "obvious" pseudoscience.
 * In this case, I believe the proper standard is If the totality of evidence does not support it (and thus it is not real science) and there is a person or group who nonetheless promotes it (and thus it is presented as real science) then I think we're safe. We don't cite that the sky is blue, so we shouldn't need to attribute the claim that something is pseudoscience when it is pseudoscience by definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Quackometer piece (currently linked from Further reading) says:
 * Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which raises the additional question of why we're linking to a blog in the further reading section.  G M G  talk   09:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right who wrote this blog is it RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quackometer - a handy source for WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well te Scottish NHS do not seem to think it is pseudoscience. So yes we need more sourcing saying it is before we can.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Source? There was some interest many years ago - but then again the NHS offered homeopathy so this means nothing. I'll ping WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just in case it's useful in any way, here appears to be a fan-made bibliography.  G M G  talk   10:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also this book which references this paper and this paper (access required). So that's probably getting more in the area of MEDRS. It's a heckuva lot better than passing mention in the BBC. But they're talking about the therapy and not Patterson seemingly at all, and the abstract of the first paper seems to confuse wording, and it's not totally clear if they're talking about Patterson's treatment or a similar one.  G M G  talk   10:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also this book which references this paper and this paper (access required). So that's probably getting more in the area of MEDRS. It's a heckuva lot better than passing mention in the BBC. But they're talking about the therapy and not Patterson seemingly at all, and the abstract of the first paper seems to confuse wording, and it's not totally clear if they're talking about Patterson's treatment or a similar one.  G M G  talk   10:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There does appear to have been a 2012 review conducted in Scotland, NeuroElectric Therapy™ in Opiate Detoxification Fingleton and Matheson - Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, December 2012. Unfortunately it's not online, though appears to be excerpted here. Money quote: "The evidence base for the use of NET™ in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET™ was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification.". AIUI the device is still marketed by Patterson's son. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also "There is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of NET™ at improving drugfree

behaviour and further research of good methodological quality is required." that is not the language that would be used for an obvious pseudoscience one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is. "More research is needed" signs off practically all research into pseudoscience (and we're not meant to say it on WP). Alexbrn (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Can we have a source that says that pseudoscience is any scientific theory that needs more study? As the materiel stands (we attribute the claim) I have no issue with, but it must be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to put something together. I'm almost fully alive caffeinated, but my daughter is bound to wake up any minute. Standby.  G M G  talk   11:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Quick note. In the field of health, there have been since... forever... (and I mean the prehistoric ages) people offering various treatments for X, with motivations ranging from "trying to help" to "making money", and often mixtures of those things. It is something humans do.
 * Today we have a) science and b) regulatory agencies. The first allows us to understand if something is safe and effective or not, and the second prevents people from selling treatments unless they are proven to be safe and effective.
 * Today, when people offer services to treat diseases/conditions that haven't been proven to be safe and effective, we call that "pseudoscience" and regulatory agencies call that "illegal".
 * Every day people try to abuse Wikipedia to sell snake oil; some of them are "fans" and some are actually trying to make money one way or another.
 * And no we will not say "more research is needed" or "promising" or any of that other marketing crap that people try to shove into articles to hype things.
 * I am very comfortable using AE to get people topic banned who bludgeon talk pages pushing for this sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

, please stop pushing the bogus and too generic wording of "medical establishment called this quackery". The New Scientist is a medical magazine, the lowest admissible quality barely barely over the WP:MEDORG threshold; the sentence about the medical establishment is an in-passing mention and not the focus of the article.

And it is not even gramatical. If we deconstruct the two sentences like you're doing, the precedent of "this" in "This is precisely how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy" would be "thinking the doctor is a quack", but the adjective "quack" is applied to "doctor" and the "medical establishment" is applied to "therapy". The composition of these sentences does not add up as the generic "medical establishment dismissed Patterson's therapy as "quackery"" that you wrote.

I've rewritten the Effectiveness section to something closer to what can be extracted from those two sentences. If you want to use the article to support a claim of quackery, please use a wording like that, being as close as possible to the source per WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Diego (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Needs to be in the lede too though, then we'd be good! Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
{{talkquote| In 1980 Patterson conducted a survey, and successfully contacted 66 out of 130 former patients. She found that 53 reported being drug free. In 1981, Philip Connell attempted to replicate these findings in a comparison with methadone treatment for opiate withdraw. Connell concluded that the effects of NES were "not incompatiable with a rather ineffective treatment or even simply a placebo effect." Patterson took issue with Connell's methodology, including small sample size, high rates of attrition,{{efn|Of the 24 participants who began the study, only four completed it. }} and insufficient training for nurses providing the treatment. She published her response in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1985.

Later studies have failed to find evidence that NES was more effective than a placebo. However, NET may have influenced the dosing used by similar therapies decades later. As recently as 2006, Laurence Gruer of NHS Health Scotland, suggested NET may treat withdrawal symptoms, and others such as Ken Barrie of Alcohol and Drug Studies at the University of the West of Scotland, described the research as being in an early stages, requiring additional study.

RfC regarding the further reading section
Should the article include the following in the further reading section? G M G talk   15:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose as proposer. The source is a blog by an apparently non-notable writer, and the further reading section is not a repository for sources we find and like, but are too unreliable to use in an article.  G M G  talk   15:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is just a blog, by a non notable person. Just because other articles use it is not reason to keep it (just remove it from those other articles).Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lean keep. WP:PARITY permits us to use lesser sources to counter fringe claims (such as the implication that this electric shock therapy helped 'cure' rockstars). Not only is this blog frequently cited on WP, but is quite influential especially in the UK, being cited by e.g. The Guardian, The Telegraph,, and the The Independent newspapers. Also in respectable magazines such as Science and Wired. It's just the kind of source we look to for balance on fringe topics which aren't taken seriously in weightier sources. That said this is only used for "Further reading" so it's hardly indispensible here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. There is a problem that pseudoscience like NET will be researched by its proponents yielding diffident conclusions like "more research is needed"; whereas mainstream scientists won't touch it because it's too fringe for serious consideration. That leads to a lack of clear statements of mainstream opinion that such "treatments" are hogwash. WP:PARITY is an important counter-balance that helps patch our system of sourcing which would otherwise lead to over-emphasis on alleged positive aspects of a fringe topic. Quackometer has some currency on the topic of fringe science (receiving sufficient notice in independent sources to establish its own notability by our standards), and I would not hesitate to use this source in the article, but if it is not used there (why not?), then it at least is worth bringing to the attention of readers who want to read further about NET. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support opposers are clearly not understanding that this topic is FRINGE and that WP:PARITY applies. The reason why PARITY exists is that there is no end to unproven but flogged "treatments" like that and mainstream science/medicine doesn't bother to even address most of it.  There are a well-known set of science-based bloggers who do, and this is when we cite them.  Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The use of WP:PARITY has been upheld on many pseudoscience pages, and has (to my knowledge) never failed to improve the article. There's a reason it's enshrined in policy. I'm not sure why we even need an RfC, as this is a clear-cut case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose A "Further reading" section should be "A bulleted list of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" as per MOS:FURTHER. The inclusion of this blog would not conform to this guidline. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think it does not conform? --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is Meg Patterson, a doctor. The therapy is not the subject of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is both the therapy and the person (in fact the therapy is more notable). Per WP:NOPAGE both topics are in the same article. This being the case, have you any other objection? Alexbrn (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose - use as inline source if WP:PARITY is relevant: in that case we can use the source, but why should it be in "further reading" instead of supporting specific statements in the text? If PARITY doesn't apply, remove it completely. --Slashme (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Use as inline source if at all possible - I have a problem with Further reading sections in general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the source is reliable enough to cite, it should be cited. Otherwise it should be ignored. Sneaking an unreliable source into the article as "further reading" is something we would not allow if done by a quack, and we shouldn't do it ourselves. Maproom (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a reliable source. Attic Salt (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
We do our readers no favours if we do not state clearly that there is no evidence of this fringe notion having any chance of being effective. You only have to look at the comments to the Quackometer op-ed piece about NET. Check the one by "Al" which states: When there are parents as desperate as that, it's no wonder that the perpetrators of these sort of "cures" will expend any amount of effort to market their product. We ought not let our encyclopedia be used for that sort of marketing, no matter how indirectly. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS, mainstream science has actually touched it quite a bit (e.g., p. 254,, ), which is exactly why we shouldn't be resorting to blogs.   G M G  talk   21:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, main stream science (and even medical bodies) have covered this. If main stream scientific papers and medical bodies do not call it quackery we should not be linking to any old blog that does claiming parity as a justification (which is precisely the opposite of the situation parity was created to deal with).Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those sources say anything about mainstream scientific opinion: "For none of these ... have promising findings been observed."; "There was no significant difference between the active or placebo groups, suggesting that placebo was as effective as active NET in reducing drug withdrawal or craving during cocaine and opiate detoxification." (a single primary study comparing NET with placebo); "Indeed, this study raises more questions than it answers. Certainly electrostimulation does not seem to fulfil the promises made on its behalf as an improved technique for withdrawing opiate addicts from their drugs." (a single primary study comparing NET with progressive methadone withdrawal). I'm sorry, but that's just evidence that there's no evidence of effectiveness for NET. We need to put that into the context of mainstream opinion and for that we need sources that actually offer an opinion, which Quackometer does. The latter two wouldn't be usable in the article to address the question of effectiveness of NET, but Quackometer does at least speak to the question of how NET is perceived and the scientific context by which one might approach the WP:REDFLAG-remarkable notion of passing electric current through drug users to overcome addiction. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If... you don't think a Harvard published book on addiction says anything about mainstream scientific opinion, and you would prefer a blog, then we... just live in different worlds. I don't hope to visit yours ever, but I hope you visit mine soon.  G M G  talk   23:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, so please correct me if needed, but that "Harvard published book" says almost nothing.
 * The blog is lower quality than I'd like. However, it goes into detail that we have nowhere else currently. Again, I could be mistaken... --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Harvard published book" just offers a summary of the research that had been done to date, without offering much by way of analysis. It's not a tremendously useful source. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * detail that we have nowhere else currently - And detail we have no good reason to believe is accurate, because it has no references and no editorial oversight... because it's a blog. It's not even an op-ed piece (and no idea why it's referred to above as one), which would require someone, somewhere, who actually publishes something for a living, to at least read the thing over once and suppose that it didn't contain glaring inaccuracies or omissions. It's written by a non-notable person with presumably no education or academic background that would qualify them to write on these subjects, since they explicitly refuse to address their qualification because they don't want to offer chances for my critics to start fights . It's not affiliated with any organization that would lead us to suppose this guy might get sacked if he did a crappy job. It's a guy with a laptop and and internet connection, or in other words, a blog.
 * The mainstream scientific opinion is that there is no evidence it's effective, full stop. Adding some dude to that doesn't add to the mainstream scientific opinion; it just adds some dude's opinion. It doesn't benefit our readers any to say "please don't get your medical information from Wikipedia. Instead, please get it from some dude."  G M G  talk   10:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The mainstream scientific opinion is that there is no evidence it's effective, full stop. That's where the disagreement lies. Stopping there excludes information on why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:FURTHER is subject to WP:ELNO, which prohibits nearly all blogs. WP:PARITY requires a fringe theory that is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, which this is not. This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journals, which are themselves covered in published books. If context is needed, then it can be provided without needing blogs by unqualified commentators who are themselves admittedly getting their own information from sites like this one.  G M G  talk   16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journals While I may be mistaken, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is correct. Nor is there any other coverage that I'm seeing on why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in this citation, an extensive summary for which is already being used in the article, but which no one seems to be able to actually access the full text for so far, the authors identified forty publications in two databases, which they narrowed down to four for their literature review. They concluded that The evidence base for the use of NET in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification. Further, they concluded that the longer term studies that reported positive outcomes were sufficiently methodologically weak so as to be essentially useless, with pretty crap follow up, and either a basically meaningless control group, or no control group at all. This included not only Patterson's own research, but also the exact paper by Gossop et al cited in the New Scientist piece.
 * When we have enough peer reviewed literature to do a peer reviewed literature review, we are not in a situation where the subject is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, or only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues, which is what PARITY is designed to allow for.  G M G  talk   17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's simply not, covered extensively in peer reviewed literature. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For a fringe theory, that's not half bad. And the standard of PARITY is not "extensively covered" in peer review, but "only covered" in unreliable sources.  G M G  talk   17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, I'll take that to mean you're apologizing for the "exaggeration". Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have different opinions of what "extensive" means. Knowing to start that she was published from the NS piece, I expected to find research in the 80s and 90s. I was surprised to find research in the past five years, and I still think that when we have coverage in books and literature reviews, we ought not be using blogs.  G M G  talk   23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I don't think that the Harvard-published book you're so keen on says anything at all about mainstream scientific opinion on NET. I do think that the blog says something about mainstream scientific opinion on NET. You prefer a source that doesn't address the issue at all to one that does. You're welcome to the world you're living in. I won't be visiting anytime soon.
 * WP:ELNO: "one should generally avoid providing external links to: 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.") has already demonstrated that Quackometer has had coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources so we've a good case for it meeting WP:GNG. The exception is valid, especially in light of WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." There's no doubt that the Quackometer article about NET contains an analysis of sources concerning NET in the light of current scientific opinion, which is exactly what we want our secondary sources to do. WP:PARITY has consensus for a reason: it covers a gap that would otherwise exist when dealing with sources for fringe topics. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Passing mention. Passing mention. Passing mention. I also once received passing mention in the media. That doesn't make the person a recognized expert, and it doesn't amount to GNG. PARITY is for cases where there isn't coverage in reliable sources; not for cases where we just prefer coverage in garbage sources, or for cases where reliable sources (with those pesky publishers, and peer reviewers) happen to write like actual recognized experts. PARITY does not mean If coverage in RS isn't flashy enough, go write a blog and link to that from Wikipedia instead.  G M G  talk   17:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately Wikipedia is a reality-based project, and reality will out from whatever sources are necessary. WP:Lunatic Charlatans and all that. That's why WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE are as they are. Frankly I'm amazing some editors seem to be tying themselves in knots to try and bolster what is, and the end of the day, a load of fucking woo. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, the blog is of lower quality than I'd like. It's used 74 times within Wikipedia, many more times in discussions rather than in articles themselves. This may be the more detailed discussion there has been about the blog. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And we're not even "using" the blog other than as an EL. Yet an RfC and reams of comments about it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm equally amazed that editors who should know better want to defend ten cent blogs because those darn books and scholarly papers are just so darned boring, and what we really need is something with short sentences, flashy graphics and no editorial oversight to spice things up. Wikipedia is not a reality based project; it's a source based project. PARITY doesn't apply if there are plenty of RS available, and if you think it does then you need to read it again.  G M G  talk   17:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No one has any doubt about your perspective here. There is an RfC running.  Let it run.  To others, I encourage you to stop responding here, as it is doing no one any good, particularly not GMG. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh it could be a good deal worse. Considering we starting with Arbcom told me I don't need sources at all. I'd say moving from that to Blogs are a reliable source. is actually quite a bit of improvement.  G M G  talk   18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting other people. I remind you again of the DS; which are meant to call for best behavior. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a misrepresentation at all. That is literally the argument that brought me here to begin with. AE is not an excuse to fail to make an impassioned argument. You in turn should not confuse making an impassioned argument with personal attacks, and confuse citing DS with actually making any substantive argument to begin with. I happen to notice no one has actually addressed my point about PARITY not applying, because there is a multitude of RS available. Perhaps you could do that instead of telling me to keep down, unless you intend for PARITY to give carte blanche for anyone who wants to write a blog and stick it on an article because they can't be bothered with RS. This has already been a horrid time sink, but I suppose at this point I'm committed. If I didn't think this had potentially project wide implications, then I wouldn't be here.  G M G  talk   22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I warned you, you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And your patronizing is duly noted.  G M G  talk   23:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are a multitude of reliable sources that describe the mainstream scientific opinion on NET, then you could save all this debate by listing some of them here. The only reason why PARITY is invoked is that no such reliable sources have been indicated so far. Nobody here wants to resort to lower quality evidence without good reason, but a blog that has received coverage in multiple reliable sources – and has some reputation – is going to be better than a site that nobody has heard of and has received no acknowledgement at all. PARITY allows us the leeway to resort to the best that we can find (in the absence of more reliable sources) that actually address issues like mainstream opinion with respect to fringe topics. "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." In addition, the lack of mainstream criticism may, in itself, be taken as justification to entirely remove the fringe claims made by Patterson. "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether." (WP:ONEWAY) As a content guideline, WP:FRINGE enjoys site-wide consensus and you need stronger arguments than those you've mustered so far to disqualify its application here. --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As already explained above, the 2012 literature review already cited in the article identified 40 publications in two databases. The Journal of substance abuse treatment, Journal of substance abuse, British Journal of Psychiatry, Nursing times, Bulletin on narcotics, and British journal of addiction are not "alternative venues", and a topic which has been covered in all of them is not one that is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues. G M G talk   16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's generally only been criticized in places which fall outside our normal sourcing standards, so yes WP:PARITY applies. Evidence-based medicine (in)famously is blind to common sense. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you go find consensus for changing the wording for PARITY. Maybe you can reach a widespread agreement to switch only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues to only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in peer reviewed publications, literature reviews, and books.  G M G  talk   17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine: NET is only properly criticized in alternative venues (though the 1995 review linked in the sectrion below says Patterson was deluded), so we must use them. All's good: We follow the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, reread that comment, and see if you can spot where you contradict yourself.  G M G  talk   17:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's fine. Luckily WP:CLUEfulness will out, hopefully, with the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revisions today
This article said surprising little about the person. The WEIGHT was all on the celebrities she treated and the technique. I have revised this to make the article focus on her. I moved the stuff about the technique into a note. The discussion of whether NET is useful to treat addiction should really be in the electroacupuncture article. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Electroacupuncture could use a lot of work. This is 1972 we're talking about. The woo was strong, and evidence-based medicine was just taking root as a concept that would require more than a decade to begin having much impact. Patterson was in the right place at the right time. --Ronz (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it electroacupuncture? I believe Patterson used electrodes rather than needles which would make this - what? A kind of Cranial electrotherapy stimulation? Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * no she replaced needles with electrodes. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * She didn't do electrical acupuncture, and in fact, explicitly said she didn't.  G M G  talk   10:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall, I'm fine with the rewrite, and it's probably a more elegant solution than what I was proposing. Although, I'm increasingly uncomfortable using New Scientist as a source at all, since the more I dig into it, the more errors I find. For example:
 * The study wasn't actually by Connell. Connell was fourth co-author, and the lead author was Gossop, who isn't even mentioned.
 * There wasn't four out of 24 who completed the study. There were four out of 12 ES patients who completed it, and four out of 12 methadone patients. So it's either eight out of 24, or four out of 12, but in no way four out of 24.
 * The study wasn't completed in 1981. It was started in 1981, completed in 1982, and published in 1984.
 * So... yeah. Overall it's just sloppy, in addition to being old as dirt.  G M G  talk   11:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the biomedical literature, the last-listed author is the senior author and PI; in this case Connell was director of the center that ran the study. It is entirely appropriate to name him. And the New Scientist paper doesn't say "completed" it says "carried out" in 1981, and seeing how the primary source says the study started in 1981 that is not entirely unreasonable. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've crossed my psychology and psychiatry. The attrition rate is still a pretty glaring error.  G M G  talk   18:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the four should have been an 8. A typo.  We are not citing the New Scientist for that, but for the sense of the medico-scientific community, and it is good for that. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that why you're citing them?.  G M G  talk   00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With FRINGE stuff like this, we cannot follow MEDRS as there are no MEDRS refs. We are stretching into PARITY in a bunch of ways.  You have turned this part into further unconstructive discussion so I will not be responding here further, either.  Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So... We can't cite the newer peer reviewed studies because they're not MEDRS. And we can't cite the newer books who cite the peer reviewed studies because they're not comprehensive enough. And so we're going to cite the 40 year old admittedly inaccurate magazine article because "we cannot follow MEDRS". And I am specifically going to ping you to this comment, because if you do not respond I'm going to assume WP:SILENCE, and remove it.   G M G  talk   01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble seeing such an assumption would be in good faith in order to improve this article. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, when we take old, outdated, and inaccurate sources, and replace them with newer more reliable ones, that is considered an improvement.  G M G  talk
 * Please propose a concrete change. To the actual article.  About Meg Patterson. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, the NS source is very nearly garbage and should be removed outright, or replaced using high quality sources which cite high quality research for a medical claim. We're not using the New Scientist source because it's the best source available; it's an exceptionally poor quality source that we're using because it happens to say the word "quack".  G M G  talk   10:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The NS source is fine for its use, and no amount of invented faults is going to change that. To have arrived at a point where the New Scientist is called "exceptionally poor quality" is to have arrived at a point where serious debate has stopped. We need to point out that quackery is quackery, because of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you find yourself getting frustrated, consider looking for a source that meets MEDRS, rather than defending one that doesn't.  G M G  talk   14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, WP:MEDRS applies to WP:Biomedical information. Whether something is quackery is not biomedical information (whether it works or not, is). The categorization of something as quackery is more in the realm of consumer protection and ethics. We know (from WP:MEDRS) this device doesn't work, therefore selling it is by definition quackery and it is not surprising this is given as the view of the medical establishment (even MP's son writes than she was opposed by the medical establishment). Any old source can support obvious facts. Luckily we have a pretty good one. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * MEDRS also applies to Information that is not typically biomedical ... if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information. And you should be careful that bending over backward too far can lead to back injuries.  G M G  talk   17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And since the quackery charge is in nice alignment with the biomedical assessment (i.e. NET does not work), we're golden. You should be careful about not misbehaving to the extent you get blocked or banned. My advice is WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was a sanction-able offense to point out when someone's argument reached the point of inanity, I would have been blocked a long time ago. Saying that calling someone a quack is not a statement about the effectiveness of their treatment is approaching the point of giving up on words having meaning.  G M G  talk   17:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing you are not dealing with GNG, is that the Patterson were selling NET to people who wanted treatment, and there was (and still is) no good evidence that it worked/works. That is what makes this "quackery". We would be having a different conversation if they were just doing research and talking about what they were finding.  There are researchers who oversell their research, but that is an entirely different matter from people selling medical services.  That is why you are meeting brick walls here, and why you will continue meeting them, and why if you keep battering this talking page promoting what is essentially snake oil, I will bring you to AE under the alt med DS.  I am gathering diffs already; please take this seriously and re-think the approach you are taking here so I and others talking with you don't have to take up yet more time.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * promoting what is essentially snake oil I've not said anything remotely akin to promotion. That that is the assumption is probably a good indicator of why the discussion has gone exactly nowhere, and why editors are willing to flatly ignore policy.  G M G  talk   19:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the only person who doesn't see what you are doing; if I need to bring a case at AE, the diffs will make it clear to observers there as well. You can hear this, or not. As you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently I'm failing to convince someone who assumed bad faith from the beginning. Which is fine. We can look to see if a month from now an RfC is worth the trouble. That's the kind of thing RfCs are designed for.  G M G  talk   20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, I'm now not sure whether NET is best characterized as Cranial electrotherapy stimulation since PMID 23954780 seems to categorize it as Transcranial alternating current stimulation (now there's a poor article). Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The TACS article was all primary sources; I have redirected it to the Cranial electrotherapy stimulation article which is our main article for the alternating current kind, contrasted with Transcranial direct-current stimulation. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

1995 Review
Thanks to at WT:MED who unearthed a 1995 review, PMID 8679022. This doesn't add much to what we already know. The first trial found NET ineffective, Patterson claimed it had been improperly done and set up a second trial in the USA, but this too found NET ineffective. The author of the review author comments pointedly

and

I think NET is a notable topic that deserves reasonable coverage, but per WP:NOPAGE can be spliced in here, without requiring a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meg Patterson


text:
User:Hoove114/sandbox

Transmembrane protein 33 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the TMEM33 gene, also known as SHINC3 and 1600019D15Rik. Another name for TMEM33 is DB83.

Gene
This gene’s DNA location is chromosome 4 (map position 4p13) on the minus strand. Transmembrane protein 33 is ubiquitously expressed, but is particularly highly expressed in the blood.

mRNA
The mRNA transcript is 7717 base pairs long with 7 coding exons. The human coding region has the mRNA range of 366-1109 and the primary transcript has a long 3’ UTR that is over 5000 base pairs long

Characteristics
In Homo sapiens, TMEM33 protein, also known as DB83, has 9 alternative splicing patterns and 3 protein isoforms. TMEM33 is a 247 amino acid long protein with 3 transmembrane domains. The final human protein has a weight of 28 kDa and an isoelectric point of 9.88. The only known TMEM33 ortholog with four transmembrane domains is Tts1 in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. TMEM33 has a significantly high net positive charge and quantity of hydrophobic residues, particularly Leucine. TMEM33 contains a conserved domain in the protein super family UPF0121, in Homo sapiens this region spans from amino acids 1 to 246.

Post-translation modifications
Programs and experiments that analyze proteins predict various post-translational modifications of the Homo sapiens’ TMEM33. There is an experimentally determined acetylation point is at Alanine, amino acid residue 2. Phosphorylation is predicted on serine residues 197 and 198 and threonine residues 5, 127, and 193. The primary kinases that are predicted to act on TMEM33 are PKC and PKA. TMEM33 is predicted to have an O-glycosylation site at amino acid 4 and 5

Structure
The final structure of TMEM33 is unknown, but it is predicted to be composed primarily of alpha-helices and coiled domains.

Cellular localization
According to the sequence motifs of the Homo Sapiens TMEM33 it is predicted to be at the endoplasmic reticulum 48%, mitochondria 35%, and nucleus 13%. TMEM33 orthologs in mammals, aves, nematoda, and fungi were also predicted to localize to these three cellular locations: the ER first and the mitochondria second, and some orthologs a third location was predicted and it was the nucleus. Homo Sapiens TMEM33 localized with ER membrane and NE exogenously in an experiment by Urade et al 2014. The fission yeast TMEM33 ortholog, Tts1, was reported to localize to the ER and to the NE.

Homology
A TMEM33 ortholog is known to be in 148 organisms and no known paralogs exist. TMEM33 is conserved throughout animals: mammals with >95% gene similarity to humans, aves and reptiles with >90% gene similarity, amphibians and actinopterygii with >80% gene similarity, and all other invertebrate animals with >60% gene similarity. It also has very distant orthologs that have UPF0121 in fungus, yeast, and plants with a TMEM33 ortholog gene with similarity to humans of 40-50%.

Protein interactions
In humans, an affinity chromatography ran on TMEM33 showed that the protein bound to reticulon 4C, 1A, 2B,  3C, and Arl6IP1 in vitro. TMEM33 was found to interact with ubiquitin C, ubiquitin specific peptidase 19 (USP19), 40S ribosomal protein S14 (RPS14), replication protein A (RPA1, RPA2, RPA3), transitional endoplasmic reticulum ATPase (VCP), and RNA poly III initiation factor (BRF2) using affinity capture experiments with those proteins as bait. Coimmunoprecipitation experiment using two pore channel (TPC), located in the nucleus in vivo, and TMEM33 found that these two proteins bind.

Function
Urade et al 2014 found that TMEM33 exogenously suppressed reticulon 4C function, while reticulon protein is known to induce the formation of tubular structure of the ER. Therefore, TMEM33 is thought to regulate tubular ER structure. Tts1, TMEM33 ortholog in Schizosaccharomyces pombe, has been shown to be involved in dictating ER curvature as well. Using knock-out studies, Tts1 was shown to have a role in directing the spindle pole bodies and nuclear core complexes in the nuclear envelope during mitosis.

title: User:Hoove114/sandbox


text:
Southern League (1952–53)

The Southern League was resurrected in 1952 as the regional third tier of speedway racing in the United Kingdom for Southern British teams as a replacement for the defunct National League Division Three. The league ran for two seasons before being replaced by the Southern Area League. The champions of both seasons were Rayleigh Rockets

title: Southern League (1952–53)


text:
Petroleum engineering

Welcome to the department of petroleum engineering!

Petroleum Engineering is involved in the exploration and production activities of petroleum as an upstream end of the energy sector. Upstream, refers to the source of the petroleum, the petroleum deposit, usually buried deep beneath the earth's surface supplying flow to consumers as a river supplies the ocean. The diverse topics covered by petroleum engineering are closely related to the earth sciences. Petroleum engineering topics include economics, geology, geochemistry, geomechanics, geophysics, oil drilling, geopolitics, knowledge management, seismology, team building, team work, tectonics, thermodynamics, well logging, well completion, oil and gas production, reservoir development, and pipelining.

It is an increasingly technical profession that involves procuring reserves from places that predecessors deemed too difficult or not economic with the technology of the day or commodity prices. The use of high technology equipment, high speed computers, innovative materials, team management philosophies, statistics, probability analysis, and knowledge management, is usually coupled with the reality of only indirect measurement of most essential facts due to being buried under miles of earth. As such engineers must sometimes develop new techniques from one source to another, and one look at the number of patents held for use in the industry is testimony to the highly technical nature of this field.

As mistakes may be measured in millions of dollars, petroleum engineers are held to a high standard. Deepwater operations can arguably be compared to space travel in terms of technical challenges. Arctic conditions and conditions of extreme heat have to be contended with. High Temperature and High Pressure (HTHP) environments that have become increasingly commonplace in today's operations require the petroleum engineer to be savvy in topics as wide ranging as thermohydraulics, geomechanics, and intelligent systems.

Petroleum engineers must implement high technology plans with the use of manpower, highly coordinated and often in dangerous conditions. The drilling rig crew and machines they use become the remote partner of the petroleum engineer in implementing every drilling program. Understanding and accounting for the issues and communication challenges of building these teams remain just as vital to the petroleum engineer as ever.

The Society of Petroleum Engineers is the largest professional society for petroleum engineers and is a good source of information. Petroleum engineering education is available at dozens of universities in the United States and throughout the world - primarily in oil producing states - but not only top producers.

Petroleum engineers have historically been one of the highest paid engineering disciplines; this is offset by a tendency for mass layoffs when oil prices decline. Petroleum engineering offers a challenging blend of earth sciences, geology, operations, politics, advanced mathematics and the opportunity to risk massive amounts of money. The rewards for successful engineers range from high paying jobs to the opportunities to start oil companies.

Subtopics
Petroleum engineers divide themselves into several types:

 * Reservoir engineers work to optimize production of oil and gas via proper well placement, production levels, and enhanced oil recovery techniques.
 * Drilling engineers manage the technical aspects of drilling both production and injection wells.
 * Subsurface engineers (also known as completion engineers) manage the interface between the reservoir and the well, including perforations, sand control, artificial lift, downhole flow control, and downhole monitoring equipment.
 * Production engineers monitor existing wells and work to balance production with the life of the well
 * Petroleum refining that converts crude oil and natural gas to a variety of fuels, lubricants and petrochemical products

Learning materials

 * Introduction to petroleum engineering
 * Introduction to petroleum Refining

Learning projects
Natural gas engineering

title: Petroleum engineering


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Polar Music Prize/archive1

 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012.

Polar Music Prize

 * Nominator(s): GoP T C N  17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements for becoming a featured list. It is a list of some of the greatest musicians of the 20th and 21st centuries. GoP T C N 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - just a quick one, I think the "reason" quotes border on copyvios since many of them have a vast amount of directly reproduced text. It may be worth asking someone who knows about these sorts of things (e.g. User:Moonriddengirl is extremely helpful) to have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I shortened the quotes as far as I could. Moonriddengirl meant that they are ok as long as they are shorter. Regards-- GoP T C N 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked here whether the quotes are acceptable, and I was told that they are. As long as I correctly attribute the sources to a reliable site it is right. Regards.-- GoP T C N 13:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What Moonriddengirl said was that she was "uneasy with using that much non-free content from a single source in an article". I don't see any change so far, there are hundreds of words copied in this list that are unnecessary.  You could make the quotes briefer.  The list currently seems to be a collection of copied quotes and nothing much else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what else should be shortened? Regards.-- GoP T C N 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Laureates are awarded 1 million kr.[5][5]" Ref 5 is duplicated twice at the end of this sentence. Only one is needed.
 * Change "Ref(s)" –> "Refs", since there are 2+ sources for each year.
 * "USA" should be wikilinked in the 1993 row rather than the 1994 one (i.e. wikilink the first mention of a subject).
 * As previously mentioned, quotes under "Reason" column need to be a bit shorter (i.e. only keep what is needed and essential).
 * Done everything except the last. This is not easy to shorten the quotes =/ Thanks for your comments. Regards -- GoP T C N 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – All but one point addressed sufficiently. I'll let the last point go, since it is important to include the full reason as to why the award was bestowed (i.e. you'd rather err on the side of caution by making it detailed than to leave out the essential points).  Looks like this list meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! :)-- GoP T C N 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support NapHit (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.-- GoP T C N 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Support – -- Mirokado (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've come here as a result of the request at MoS. I think the quotes are far too extensive, amounting to a copyvio and going against WP:QUOTE:
 * Using the original words from something like a prize citation is responsible and we can argue that such a citation was written in order to be quoted. These citations are however rather verbose and in some cases there is a long justification for the prize but no separate citation (right hand column of the web page under the photo if present). Long quotes from every prize description page on the site undiluted by any original content are in my view addressed by: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." (WP:NFCCEG, policy).
 * Although there is "no need for an arbitrary limit" (WP:QUOTEFARM, essay), "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose" (WP:LONGQUOTE, essay). If you argue that this is a list so we don't expect lots of original prose, the counter is that we don't expect lots of text in a list, whether quote or original, it's a list.
 * The entries for Lutosławski, Quincy Jones and Springsteen are fine, at part of a sentence from the original source. I think you should present the other entries at that sort of length, for example: "...his achievements encompass almost four decades of constantly changing modes of creativity, ..." is enough for Dylan.
 * On the other hand, the entry for Jarrett does not say enough. Here the source has lots of text but no citation as a separate entity, so I think you need a short entry in original words. Perhaps something like: "The prize was awarded for Jarrett's outstanding musical contributions in fields as diverse as classical interpretation and jazz improvisation."
 * I strongly disagree. I now removed many useful content describing the reason of the awarding. Also it would have been better to respond not so late. Regards.-- GoP T C N 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks much better now (from my point of view, sorry you disagree, and apologies for responding a bit late). I have tweaked a bit and changed to support. Just one point which I will make without the pressure of formally opposing: each Reason entry consists of a bulleted list with a single entry. This adds little to the visual display and means that the user of a screen reader has a redundant level of structure to navigate. Please consider removing those bullets. --Mirokado (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support. I removed the bullets. Regards.-- GoP T C N 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I've tweaked again and another question: Kinnarps is a redlink in the references. Perhaps better to unlink that unless you are intending to create an article "soon"? The redlink is not currently adding value to the reference. --Mirokado (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I delinked it. I won't create it due to lack of reliable sources. Regards.-- GoP T C N 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * One more note from checking the replies: B.B. King still appears to be sorting by first name, as opposed to last. Everything else from my end looks resolved at this point. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BB King is his stage name, so I think it should not be sorted. Regards.-- GoP T C N 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Law of agency

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hguo2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Law of agency


text:
Post Punk Kitchen

The Post Punk Kitchen is a vegan cooking show that aired on Brooklyn and Manhattan public-access television cable TV from 2003 to 2005. The shows were available on DVD as well.

The show was created by Isa Chandra Moskowitz, the author of the cookbooks Vegan With A Vengeance, Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World, and Veganomicon. Terry Hope Romero co-hosted.

The show was filmed in Moskowitz's small kitchen in the Prospect Heights section of Brooklyn. The hosts cooked vegan food to a back drop of punk rock music and featured local bands such as Made Out of Babies and The Cuban Cowboys "prepping" while singing one of their songs.

Episodes one to four are available to view online on YouTube.

After the show ended, the Post Punk Kitchen continued as an interactive recipe website with social networking at www.theppk.com.

title: Post Punk Kitchen


text:
John Orpen

John Herbert Orpen (30 September 1868 - 3 December 1950) was an Anglican priest in the 20th century.

He was born on 30 September 1868, educated at Selwyn College, Cambridge, and ordained for service in the Diocese of Liverpool in 1894. He held curacies in Toxteth, Beeston and Ross-on-Wye. After this he served incumbencies at Burton, Pembrokeshire, Thurston and Melton. He was commissioned as a Temporary Chaplain to the Forces on 1 October 1918, and was attached to the 1st London Reserve Brigade in Eastern Command. A son was killed in July, 1916, serving as an officer with the Lancashire Fusiliers. In 1929 he became Provost of St Edmundsbury, a post he held until 1940. From then until his death on 3 December 1950 he was Rector of Fornham All Saints.

title: John Orpen


text:
The Sun, The Moon and The Truth

The Sun, The Moon and The Truth (နေရယ်လရယ်အမှန်တရားရယ်) is a Burmese legal drama television series. It aired on MRTV for 18 episodes. Season 1 aired from February 13, to April 3, 2015, on every Friday at 21:30 for 8 episodes and season 2 aired from September 5 to 26, 2018, on every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 19:15 for 10 episodes.

Cast

 * Su Pan Htwar as May Hnin Si
 * Moe Yan Zun as Sai Thura
 * Nay Yan as Htun Naing
 * Phone Thike as Nay Min Htet
 * Khin Zarchi Kyaw as Khin Khin
 * Nyi Nanda as Khine Htoo San

title: The Sun, The Moon and The Truth


text:
Patania scinisalis

Patania scinisalis is a species of moth in the family Crambidae. It was described by Francis Walker in 1859. It is found in the Himalayas, India (Assam), Myanmar, Taiwan and Japan.

title: Patania scinisalis


text:
Talk:Medicinal properties of dandelion

Could merge to dandelion, but that is on the family of plants, this article is on use of the common dandelion specifically. Alternately we could leave it here and have dandelion see also this article. RJFJR 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Could make this flow by adding some heading and / or categories. For example: I    Description or Definition and / or History. II   Medical Uses  or Parts of the Plant used for Medical purposes III  Cultivation??? IV   Chemical compostion of the dandelion. V.   Preparations.

Could add some Preparations and Doages examples that would tie in nicely with some of your other references. For example: In your gall stone reference could add the actual prepartaion. You make note that the dandelion has characteristics that make it act like a diuretic in two locations...recomend blending those together and maybe note that because its a diuretic it acts as a stimulant especially to the urinary organs.

Solarone 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)solarone

More Suggestions
I agree with other suggestions about headings and breaking down the article into different pieces and explaining the different types of information. Though another thing to think about is explaining how the plant is used for medicine. Not what it can be used for, but how it is used. A good site that you can use is "http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsHerbs/Dandelionch.html#HowToTake"; this site shows people how to take dandelion. Dried and powdered forms are just two way you can take this plant as a medicine. This site also shows possible interactions that may cause more harm than good to a person, and other plants that have similar ways of helping someone. (SSAGE1)

Helpful Additions
It might be helful for people to see how dandelions are specifically used by people. There are uses listed but nothing specific that can be related back to a kind of medicine they are in that people use often. I found a recipe that uses dandelions in it and also ways that people eat them with sandwiches or in salads. It also says that dandelions provide the nutrients vitamin A, B, and C. By adding in these details people can relate what comes from dandelions with different nutrients that they hear about everyday. It makes them seem even more useful to everyday life. http://co.essortment.com/whatisdandelio_rawm.htm

some suggestions
Good information! On the Dandelion page of wiki, under species, there is a link to Taraxacum officinale (syn. T. vulgare), which is the common dandelion. I’m suggesting that your page be the page for Taraxacum officinale since it’s the common dandelion. When I clicked on that link, it gave me an edit page and said there is no page at this time. You do have some background information that split up with headings would make a nice page about the common dandelions history and medicinal uses. Your article says that the root is sometimes used for bronchitis and upper respiratory infections. Do you cook or boil the root to prepare it for this use? If someone is allergic to dandelions, do you think that the prepared root would cause allergic reactions? I am interested as we have a lot of upper respiratory infections in my house.

Good article, thanks for the info! --Photoart 05:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a few notes...
First of all just a spelling correction-"uncempt" to unkempt.

Another suggestion is to lay out the various ways dandelion can be taken such as a tea or grinding the roots to make a coffee, external topical ointment. The web page http://www.gardensablaze.com/HerbDandelionMed.htm has some great techniques for consuming dandelions as edible food such as dandelion scrambled eggs and preparing dandelion coffee, teas and sweeteners as well as medicinal extracts. It also contains techniques for collection dandelion roots.

I also found this little tidbit at http://www.naturalherbsguide.com/dandelion.html:

''The leaves of the plant are very rich in vitamins, including A, C, D, and B-complex. They also have high levels of minerals like iron, magnesium, zinc potassium, manganese, copper, choline, calcium, boron, and silicon. The most active ingredient in dandelions, eudesmanolide and germacranolide, are found only in dandelions.'' In addition, perhaps it would be interesting to segregate the various parts of the plant that is used and how. Also, since dandelions are such a popular plant, perhaps you could find a free picture of one or take one yourself for the page.

One other note, since you’re talking medicinally, maybe include something about side effects and interactions. The above site mentions that Some individuals experience stomach pain because of hyperacidity. It is safe to use with other drugs.

Kaliadia

Citations added, can someone check Dandelion Medicine?
I added information from the PDR for Herbal Medicine and the Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine. Could someone track down a copy of Dandelion Medicine? The information from there sounds a little, er, dodgy; and I can't say I like the use of "are also cited to be effective" rather than any actual citation.

Seashunt 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Taraxacum officinale
As discussed at Talk:Taraxacum officinale, this page has had serious problems since its inception, and a better summary of information is available on the Taraxacum officinale page. It was decided to replace this page with a redirect. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Medicinal properties of dandelion


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/tdl-service.com

Links

 * tdl-service.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Selected additions

 * Displayed 4 additions out of 4 total.	 For more info see WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/tdl-service.com

Entry
Log entry for the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist:

\btdl-service\.com\b        # ADMINNAME # see  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/tdl-service.com ]]

Discussion
See COIBot report for more details.

New data reported. --COIBot (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Ardon Jashari

Ardon Jashari (born 30 July 2002) is a Swiss professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Belgian Pro League side Club Brugge and the Switzerland national team.

He has also been part of the Switzerland U21.

Club career
Jashari made his professional debut with FC Luzern in a 2–1 Swiss Super League win over FC Zürich on 31 July 2020.

In April 2024 it was announced that Jashari would join Belgian Pro League club Club Brugge in the summer, having agreed a four-year contract. The transfer fee was reported as €6 million, a club record for FC Luzern.

International career
Jashari made his debut for the Switzerland national team on 27 September 2022 in a Nations League game against the Czech Republic, substituting Remo Freuler in added time.

Jashari was included in the Switzerland squads for the 2022 FIFA World Cup and Euro 2024.

Personal life
Born in Cham, Switzerland, Jashari is of ethnic Albanian descent from North Macedonia.

Honours
Individual
 * Swiss Super League Player of the Month: September 2022

title: Ardon Jashari


text:
lailla

Etymology 1
< (the adessive singular form of )

Postposition

 * 1) like, as

Inflection
The possessive forms are not used that often.

Noun

 * 1)  sense law.
 * lailla kielletty
 * forbidden by law

Noun

 * 1)  sense summit, peak.

title: lailla