User talk:Macgruder

Welcome!

Hello, Macgruder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Arbor 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

R&I

Hey Macgruder, thanks for the many good questions you ask about the R&I article. Everytime a newcomer comes and bugs us (intelligently and politely), the article improves, so please stay around. I urge you to read up on the collective statements linked at the bottom of the page (these are as good a representation of the consensus as you are likely to find), and the entire PPPL issue that includes not only the Rushton–Jensen paper (which is a truly great paper, no matter what your own position is) but also the counterpoints in the same issue. We need science-oriented people on this article (as on other WP stuff). Most of us working on the R&I article approached the subject like you do (with horrified scepticism), but have come to accept that, as terrible as it is, R&I research is right. I have come to the conviction that the "creationists" in this context are those that say that race does not exist or that intelligence is not a genetically determined trait.

But no matter on which side of the issue you come out (after some reading!), please stay around. Arbor 16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Capitalization

I will try to give a hand there later. I was thinking right now about BoA or Utada Hikaru's, so it may take time. -- ReyBrujo 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Dokdo Page

Hey Macgruder, I just thought you might want to know you should put new comments on the bottom of the talk page. Maybe you were in a hurry or something. I moved them for you, just wanted to let you know why. Davidpdx 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommended reading. There is a huge used book store in Portland. I'll have to put it on my list of books. If you want to read a really good book about Korea, pick up Micheal Breen's The Koreans. Davidpdx 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags

There are (were) two tags on there. The one that you removed said in part that the title was not neutral (or the body, but only the title is in question here). Perhaps one tag is enough, just based on your comment I wasn't sure if you had seen that part. It's no big deal, but if you add the other tag, it places the article in the "disputed neutrality" (for titles or articles) category that some might check. If we have to pick one tag, I'm not sure which is the better one, but I would be leaning to agree with you since this one focuses solely on the title. Komdori 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment

Hey MacGruder, sorry I moved your comments.

I designated that section to outline & clarify opinions & to make assertions, not to debate & argue. Yeah. Thanks. P.S. So far, you've mostly added deconstructive comments against other people's opinions or previous polls, etc. How about adding some constructive comments on your theory? (Wikimachine 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Destructive comments?? Only myself and Komdori are arguing using Wikipedia Policy. The fact that finally people are actually reading the naming policy as laid down by Wikipedia is proof of a constructive outcome. Wikipedia requires the name that is used in English, and I've given multiple instances that Liancourt Rocks is that name. Regarding the previous poll. Obviously, since almost all the comments were not by Wikipedia policy I'm going to criticize that. Look carefully and you'll see that I've quoting a Korean scholar who states that Liancourt Rocks is the internationally accepted name, it's the name used in major encyclopedias etc. , and that Dokdo or Takeshima are essentially never used alone in respected sources. How much more do you need? Macgruder 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense. Deconstructive. That is... your arguments are shaped as if they were alternate or possible reflection of the current status. What you did just now was perfect. Constructive as in shaping your arguments with your own theories, ideas that support each other. (Wikimachine 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Oops, sorry. Need to sleep. Macgruder 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Google search Liancourt Rocks as well...Kingj123 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

!

there is a difference between administration and occupation, but currently, Japan has no Jurisdiction over Takeshima... Odst 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What word do you suggest? I can't think of any right now... Disputed by? Claimed by? I just can't help but think that the word administration gets annoying... Odst 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

Thanks for your contributions to the discourse but the article in question has emerged from a long process of rewrite and revision to the present form. The earlier Invention of the telephone article is not well-researched and certainly cannot be considered definitive in challenging the tone and focus of an essentially biographical record. The telephone debate was taken to the courts and over 800 lawsuits resulted. the Bell patent was never rescinded and his role in developing the technology and scientific concepts underlying the communication device is not in dispute. If you wish to continue the discussion as to the invention and inventors' claims, take it to the other article talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

...and as much as I enjoy conspiracy theories, they lack a certain lustre when they are simply supposition and inuendo. Whenever there is a widespread academic and scientific support for a view or stance, inevitably, the naysayers and revisionists marshall up with their own theories. Nice to hear, but hardly substantive. FWIW, see Kennedy assassination, Global warming, Amelia Earhart disappearance, ad nauseum... Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Take the time and read the edit history of the Bell article and note all the use of reference sources. I do not wish to revisit the Meucci claims. It is clear in the reference note: Bruce 1990, p. 271-272. Note: Meucci had a "tin-can on a string" telephone that could never have been patented as it was not an original invention. Bell's lawyer, William Sorrow later wrote: "Meucci is the silliest and weakest imposter who has ever turned up against the patent." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

The invention of the telphone controversy is provided in the article and has been exhaustively argued back and forth for decades right up to modern times. It is given due weight appropriate to the amount of information that exists about Bell and his life's work. Read earlier drafts to see the different versions that previously were in play. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Hi

I was wondering how you came up with this edit ([1])? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really pleased to hear from you! Please see the thread at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Standard_deviations_and_probabilities, where there's some disagreement with the figures. I don't understand the maths, but I do understand the need for us to cite claims from RS. I'll need to be able to link to a table or something that backs up the stats. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate_diet

FYI: I made some updates to the Low-carbohydrate_diet page that you might have concerns about. In particular the research section.

Please feel free to comment or make your own edits.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Particularly your intro paragraph to "Major Governmental and Medical Organizations" doesn't really reflect your summaries. Many of them voice outright opposition.

Errr, well I think the intro says that (doesn't scream it). What's most interesting in my mind is the gradual change in positions over the last several years (mind you, even the AHA which still condemns low carb has somewhat hypocritically been altering its recommendations over the last several years encouraging more fiber in place of starch and encouraging more "lean" meats). Anyway please suggest a rephrasing.

4 or 5 opposition, 2 or 3 no real opinion, plus the ADA..

Huh?

Qualified support: Am Diab Assoc, Socialstyrelsen

Wishy-washy opposition: HHS, Am Diet Assoc

Condemnation: Am Heart Assoc, Aus Heart Foundation, FSA, H&S Found

...the American Diabetes Association "Nevertheless this is arguably the first endorsement, albeit for the short-term, by a major medical organization" is not how I read what the ADA says at all. They simply state that it *may* be effective for *weight loss*. This is not an endorsement. 'Arguably' here is a weasel word.

Perhaps "arguably" is a poor word. In any event are you suggesting that all the news outlets are wrong?[2][3][4]

I think you need to be clearer on how effective they are for actual weight loss. From what I can see no studies have shown that they are effective for weight loss - or no more effective than other diets. I feel a general summary should have

long term effect unknown

appear to be safe for short term

Major Governmental and Medical Organizations generally oppose, never truly endorse while stating that weight loss is no better anyway not shown to be more effective for weight loss

? Huh? Did you read the research page? A lot of studies show no weight loss advantage for low carb but many do. More signficantly most of the studies that show equivalent weight loss show significantly better metabolic indicators. And there are a number of studies that have come out demonstrating long term effects (although, of course, the interpretation of those results is not yet endorsed by major medical organizations yet). The "never truly endorse" statement is false. Most still strongly oppose but it is a significant point that some have given the green light (albeit short term) and others are hemming and hawing on the subject.

Anyway, the major point here is that what you trying to do violates one of the cardinal rules of Wikipedia: original research. As there is no scholarly consensus any summary of the research like what you're suggesting would violate policy.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. Thank for your efforts.

Thanks. Please feel free to make whatever edits you think are appropriate.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the ADA says, and quoted from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801106.html

""The risks of overweight and obesity are well-known. We recognize that people are looking for realistic ways to lose weight," Ann Albright, president of health care and education for the ADA, said in a prepared statement. "The evidence is clear that both low-carbohydrate and low-fat calorie restricted diets result in similar weight loss at one year. We're not endorsing either of these weight-loss plans over any other method of losing weight. What we want health-care providers to know is that it's important for patients to choose a plan that works for them, and that the health-care team support their patients' weight-loss efforts and provide appropriate monitoring of patients' health.""

This is not an endorsement. It is rather simply saying that diabetes patients (and their physicians) can consider such a diet. You can't use the word endorsement when Ann Albright of the ADA has specifically said "not endorsing".

I think we are getting into tomayto/tomahto territory. I actually did see this comment from the ADA after I wrote to you so I reworded the statement to avoid the term "endorsement" since the ADA doesn't seem to like that. Nevertheless the major news outlets (including the one that you are citing here) clearly state that they interpret the ADA's statements to be giving formal support to the diet. Whether or not they favor it over any other diet plan is beside the point.

Unfortunately, the other 'endorsement' is not a credible source. I can't read Swedish so we need to take care what someone writes on a blog.

Well, there are multiple sources for this on the Internet (e.g. [5]). Unfortunately CNN and company do not appear to have picked up the story. I grabbed that blog site because it is English-language and contains a fair amount of detail. It is not some random blog but a blog from a media outlet. I think that makes it reasonably credible (albeit still not CNN). I have included that e-health link above since it is more credible although it is not in English.

I understand that some studies have shown advantages in weight loss, but many of these were not statistically significant or were no longer there by the end of the study. The overall consensus seems to be that low-carb doesn't confer weight-loss benefits, and if it does it's fairly minimal. A non-significant difference is scientifically no difference.

I agree that statistical significance is the key. I don't agree that there is a good consensus. I see no evidence of that from the media reports (even parsing the various statements from the medical organizations show substantial inconsistencies, i.e. commentary on specific topics that does not jibe with their official positions). It is true that most studies show that beyond a year the differences are not great. Of course, one would expect that at some point all weight loss plans converge (i.e. if I put 10 people of the same weight on 10 diets for 10 years and all fall to their ideal weights then the overall weight loss is statistically the same; it is more significant to look at who got their faster and what were the side-effects).

Honestly I genuinely want to summarize the medical opinions and research more than the article currently does but I know of no way to do that better in a truly NPOV manner. There is simply too little consensus and too many differences of opinion on exactly the same research. Frankly I think it will take several years of discussion for the medical community to establish a consensus on the research.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the continuing feedback.

By consensus, I kind of meant there was a consensus that nothing conclusive had been shown ! When there is a lack of concensus it means in a sense that the case has not been proved, i.e. there is no statistical evidence to show that Atkins is better than other diets. I think it is fine to say that. The onus is on the 'pro' LC group to show that their diet is significantly better than other diets. This has not happened, and this is what is required scientifically. So a 'LC has not been shown to be statistically better or worse than other diets regarding weight-loss' is fine, or something similar. To me the scientific consensus seems to be that LC is comparable to other diets over one year for weight loss. Most studies show small or on differences. However, many of the studies do say that the long term effects are unknown (and possibly dangerous - reflecting much government medical advice).

Again, I think you are letting yourself read into the statements what you want to. First careful with the word "better". You need to differentiate between weight loss and other medical issues. Regarding weight loss there have been plenty of experts who have said some studies are showing low-carb diets are more effective than low-fat diets (certainly the authors of some of these studies have said that). It is true that the major medical and governmental associations in their official position statements tend to say or at least imply that that the diets are the same but it is a stretch to say that these official statements represent consensus in the community or even within their own organizations. The consensus you purport perhaps existed during the 70s and 80s but certainly does not exist now. And please note that there are multi-year studies coming out (one that analyzed people over 20 years) which show no harmful side effects and, in fact, show possible health benefits for low-carb. In fact I am unaware of any of the recent long-term studies that showed any significant harmful side effects (I am, of course, excluding the 2000 study where they used a computer model instead of human trials). I you are aware of such long-term studies please let me know so I can add them to the medical research page for balance.

Once again as long as we stick to this, it seems no better/worse and the long term is unknown, I think that this is fine. Early versions of these articles tended to 'promote' the Atkins metabolic advantage which was basically marketing propaganda. The problem with these articles is that at present there are not enough people actively contributing, and thus bias creeps in. You seem to be keen to get the balance right so that's fine as far as I'm concerned. I only started contributing to them because when I first read them it was like reading an advertisement for Atkins and there seemed to be very little understanding of how scientific process works regarding statistics. Things are better now. I'll just pop by occasionally and let you know if I think things need to be changed. Macgruder (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I have made an effort to balance it but I agree more contributors would be better. As I say, I have tried to avoid summarizing things for which there is not a genuine consensus and, unfortunately, with this topic that applies to most of it. I know my own bias slips in at times.

Thanks again.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_Nutritional_Approach scientific studies section, which is uniformly terrible.

I've taken a stab at it. I have a feeling the authors are going to flip out.

Enjoy!

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:3 quarter time.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:3 quarter time.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Other procedures lack rigorous proof

Re this recent edit of yours to Chiropractic, I commented about it at Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof; could you please follow up there if you have the time? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I made further comments at Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof, and also responded to your new section Talk:Chiropractic #A starting point for a look at the effectiveness section and introduction. Please let us know there of any further thoughts you have on the subject. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made further comment at Talk:Chiropractic #Other procedures lack rigorous proof specifically looking for your input, MacGruder. Essentially, I am only trying to reach an agreement that this article should not cite research on non-chiropractic spinal manipulation which makes no conclusion specifically about chiropractic. I have no problem with using sources where researchers have applied non-chiropractic spinal manipulation to conclusions about chiropractic. My beef is when we make such an application ourselves. Anyhow, take a look at the discussion and you will see my explanation in length. Thanks for your interest! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up again. I made further comments at Talk:Chiropractic #Summarize what researchers conclude, Talk:Chiropractic #DeVocht's weight, and Talk:Chiropractic #Review of draft intro para for Effectiveness. Eubulides (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I responded to your further comments, and created a new section Talk:Chiropractic #Simon-says and DeVocht to talk about the new "according to at least one researcher" change. I hope you don't mind all this commentary! It takes quite some time to come up to speed on both chiropractic and Chiropractic, and we do appreciate the new pair of eyes that you provide. Eubulides (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Liancourt Rocks

I have begun a Request for comments discussion at Talk: Liancourt Rocks on whether or not the current infobox under discussion there is neutral in its presentation of basic article information. Since you have previously participated in this discussion, I encourage you to come and offer your opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it WP:OR for Chiropractic to use treatment reviews?

In WP:NOR/N #SYN and DeVocht, Levine2112 says that you are suggesting that Chiropractic should not cite reviews like Ernst & Canter 2006 (PMID 16574972), and that you argue that these reviews are about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic, so that it's WP:OR to mention them in Chiropractic. My impression is the reverse, and that you favor using reviews like Ernst & Canter. Levine2112 suggested I contact you and ask for clarification. Can you please clarify this? I suggest leaving comments not only there, but also in Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews and Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment, Possible OR violation at Chiropractic Effectiveness, where the discussion has migrated to. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

William Nierenberg and WP:3RR

I wonder if you're aware of WP:3RR? You appear to have broken it at William Nierenberg. Also, for someone who professes that I don't think that edit warring is very productive you're doing a lot of reverting. Can you say "hypocrite"? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR means 4 or more in 24 hours. Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article. Which is precisely what I did. I suspect that most editors would agree that reverting a user's edit that removes cited material and replaces it with a blog citation under the grounds 'I know a lot' is acceptable. My edits conformed to WP:V, yours sadly did not. And can we stop this, 'I know a lot', 'twaddle', 'hypocrite' stuff. It's tiresome. Macgruder (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that despite your strong protesting, you did indeed break 3RR: Previous version reverted to: [6], 1st revert [7], 2nd revert [8], 3rd revert [9], 4th revert [10]. (i saw this on WMC's talk page, and checked). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The fourth one is passifying the previous edit by me . That is not a revert. Please take another look. i.e. this forth one was actually an attempt to go closer to William M. Connolley' position. So that makes 3. Macgruder (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)