Template:Archive box collapsible

Thanks for cleaning up after me--and I think you know that "misspelling" wasn't the right word: it was a leftover from the Dutch article. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#CFS.2FME_text_under_header

You were involved in the whole naming thing, so I think it's fair to give you a chance to comment on it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

No harm intended. I'm no expert on WP:BLP, just so you know. My reason for doing that little edit was that I was worried that mentioning the harassment in the lead paragraph, so prominently, gave that one fact undue weight and made it possible that it could result in a WP:BLP challenge - thus putting the whole page in jeopardy. I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seemed to be the type of assertion that someone could argue is libelous... and some of her associates do come to Wikipedia. Really, just seeing the "she harasses people on the internet" in the first paragraph made my alarm bells go off.

Personally, I think it might be wise to re-write the entire article in a traditional journalistic voice - e.g., instead of saying "Posting under the screen name 'Curio', Napolis began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy", I'd re-write it as "an article in (insert source here) asserted that Napolis, posting under the screen-name 'Curio', began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy". That way Wikipedia's only reporting assertions, not making them. That seems to work for journalists.

In fact, might it also be good to re-structure the article to a sequential account of her notable activities? I don't think we'd normally have an article on the average internet stalker (else they'd number in the millions). Maybe the article should establish her importance, and then place the more recent craziness further on, to give it its proper weight.

Anyway, I dunno. I'd like to see the article remain, even though I think she's only borderline notable. And while I'm no expert, I'd think it'll be very difficult to make an article on her withstand BLP challenges, since there aren't many positive things that could be said. So, that's the only reason I got involved.

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I'm just happy the page is getting more attention. I don't think a page has to include positive things (i.e. Hitler may have painted roses but frankly, who gives a shit 'cause he's famous for slaughtering millions - though he's also dead) and all coverage of Napolis is about her being a stalker and harassing people in the context of a wild, tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theory. I'm no expert either, but I hope other editors will step in and help out since I don't have the experience to write a really good, sails-past-BLP page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting article, I read the "Michael Aquino response" too. I wonder whether investigators have gone back and looked at her work as a child abuse investigator and a licensed MFT in light of her delusions, which I think would be quite warranted. Also, the fact that she was apparently able to keep her delusions in check so long as she was on probation, and started up again once it was over suggests a certain shrewdness to her illness! Шизомби (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've recently added "mentally ill" to descriptions of Napolis, both in her article and the Loftus one. This might be going way overboard in violation of WP:BLP.

1. the source you're giving is only stating that she underwent a competency hearing - in 2002. That does not establish that she is mentally ill. (Yes, I've read her blog, that's beside the point.)
2. identifying someone as mentally ill is over-the-top, for all sorts of reasons. The Syd Barrett article, for example, doesn't start off identifying him as "the mentally ill former member of Pink Floyd". That devalues the subject of the article, making him/her a "mentally ill person who did things" instead of a "person who did things, and later on, was diagnosed as mentally ill".
3. all rules aside, dude, you're just looking vindictive. Seriously, if there is anything personal between Napolis and you, you might want to recuse yourself from active editing of anything to do with her and limit yourself to page-guarding; but if there's nothing personal between you two, hopefully you'll see the merit in keeping these pages as legal as possible, for the benefit of Wikipedia.

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing between me and Napolis - never talked to her and never, ever, ever will. Also have no problem with the page being in line with BLP - unfortunately I'm not certain of BLP. I'm also not sure if calling someone diagnosed with a mental illness "mentally ill" is pejorative or a BLP concern, or just factual repoting. If my edits were out of line, then certainly they should be removed or altered (and reviewing, Sauer 2002 doesn't justify it, though the city news service article does to a certain extent - "A La Mesa woman [was] ordered to undergo mental health counseling...In addition to enrollment in a mental health counseling program...Judge Browder Willis said the defendant needed some time to develop a stable mindset, by continuing to take prescribed medications." Stops short of a diagnosis though). I think you're right to call me on it, mentally ill does over-reach the source (though see here, footnote 5 in the right-hand column).

I would contend that "mentally ill" is only as pejorative as people let it be. It's not inherently insulting to the subject in my mind, but it does qualify the article. In Barrett's case there's an extremely good case to be made that his mental illness is secondary to his life's achievements. I'll just leave the implications of that statement for the Napolis page. Napolis accuses Loftus and others of being baby-sacrificing satanists; to someone unfamiliar with the satanic ritual abuse conspiracy and the complete lack of proof there possible credibility there. Mentally ill does offset that to a certain degree, but it could very well be completely out of line. But given the larger issue I see here (Sauer 2002 doesn't justify "mentally ill") I'll remove it from Loftus. I'm wondering if the Sauer I'm seeing online is different from what was published in the print article - de Young states she was committed, citing Sauer but obviously the on-line version doesn't support that or mention Patton State Hospital. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why it was removed:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME): The Facts, Frankie Campling, Michael Sharpe, 2000, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780192630490 --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a little confused by your message... not sure if you realised that my last revision was simply some text next to the Open Directory Project link to state that it is what it is: a list of CFS-related organisations - I didn't think it was as clear as it could be. There's nothing against Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links there (in fact the policy encourages such a link), nor am I promoting anything, nor any of the other things you've told me to stop doing. I realise you've taken on a lot of the overseeing of this article, and that editing has to be tight where there is controversy, so I can understand your heavy-handedness - but I think saving such messages for those trying to push a particular POV or interest into the article would be a good idea. Apologies if this seems like a rant, it certainly isn't meant as such - I appreciate your work on this article, and I'm reasonably new to this. Always curious when I seem to have trod on a toe. - Bobathon (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WLU. Bobathon (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and again my apologies for my error. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]