User talk:Jacksonjones1972

Hello, Jacksonjones1972, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for registering an account.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay.


	Introduction 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help Tips	How to write a great article Manual of Style Be Bold Assume Good faith Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC.
You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koplewicz article

Welcome to the Wikipedia community. If you would like to make additions or changes to Wikipedia articles, please follow Wikipedia guidelines and don't simply delete entire sections that you do not agree with. If there is information included that is not properly sourced, please notate as such. If you feel that information is biased, notate as such and request that such wording be replaced with neutral and validly sourced information rather than delete what you don't agree with and replace with promotional material. You can also present your views in the article's Talk section. If you have any questions, please request help from the Wikipedia editorial team, who are always there to lend a guiding hand. Thank you.Pennphdabd (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about the wording of the article are noted (and apparently by another editor) and potentially questionable references removed or rewritten in conformance to NPOV guidelines. Please do not delete articles or mark them for deletion, but rather follow Wikipedia editing protocol and work to improve the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennphdabd (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have no connection with the subject, but had read an article by him, seen him on TV and looked him up on Wikipedia. I knew in recent years he had received a lot of NY press for various controversies, but noticed that the article mentioned none of these, but rather originally appeared to have been selectively written like it came directly from some PR promotional sheet. Perhaps I over-reacted and added too much content that potentially was not NPOV (which I am happy to change). My view is that the subject is notable primarily for the public positions he has taken on meds for children, and the controversies surrounding those, and to have no reference to those seems to negate the notability of the subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are plenty of other industry specialists with more impressive credentials and higher academic/industry standing about whom no Wikipedia articles have been written.

And your connection with the subject, seeing as you appear to be a new user focused on this subject?

Ramondelante (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested primarily in antisemitism, and fell into the rest. I found it fascinating that three users, including you, exist only for purposes of this article, which had about a dozen antisemitic comments until I called them out. I appreciate your "on the record" comments that you have no connection to the subject or his work, and removing the prior slurs. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other users that I don't know (though I perhaps fed off their edits as well), but I actually don't see anything that was racist in what was posted. In the media the subject often refers to his background and upbringing as a point of pride and reason he entered the industry, and religious background seemed to be a common theme in his career, but, on the other hand, I can understand that while potentially interesting it doesn't add to the notability of the subject. Why do you feel that it was antisemitic? Ramondelante (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite some media quotes that support the need to reference his religion over and over, down to the mission statement of the religious school he chose? Let's say just one for every reference would be reasonable. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two where he talks about the influence of his background on his career choices. Is this what you were asking?

Other than the "Early years" section that referred to his religious heritage and the influence of his parents, and indicating the choice of schools that may have been impacted by that, what other references are made to religion, and how do you construe these as slurs (you mentioned 12 antisemitic slurs)? I certainly saw no bias in repeating his assertions of why he made his career choices and the impact it had on him. Perhaps I don't understand your definition of "antisemitism". Please explain your reaction.

Ramondelante (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pointless, since you don't see gratuitously mentioning his religion over and over, and over again in an article not at all about religion as showing religious bigotry and I do. It's out now, and it will remain that way. I remind you that Biographies of Living Persons have tight policies of WP acceptable content, and you are walking the line. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have made very strong accusations about hateful speech that I find incomprehensible. I have removed any reference to his religion, but your claim that his religion was mentioned "over and over, and over again" simply is not consistent with the facts. If you look at the article before you began deleting everything, there was a reference to where his parent came from, the area where he grew up, and the school he attended. What are the other references, and how does this in any way become antisemitic, as it simply repeats his assertions of his background and choices? And your contention that somehow this is unacceptable is pretty questionable. You have asked reasons why it was included. I complied, and now you refuse to explain your own position? Do you feel that it is inappropriate or irrelevant to repeat the subject's assertions of why he chose this field and other professional choices?

Ramondelante (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the intro paragraph to Koplewicz

The subject of the article is not notable because of his recent and present position with CMI, rather his role as a pediatric psychopharmacologist and biological psychiatrist (his definition of himself, if you look up the citation) and his advocacy of psychotropic medicines. His career and reputation has been based on this as well as positions he has held as journal editor, founder of programs, etc. I would like to revert to the previous intro unless there is a compelling reason not to. Also, do you have any connection to the subject other than your stated interest in antisemitism? Ramondelante (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think any reasonable person would disagree with this. His professional degree is psychatrist, not psychopharmacologist which is loaded with negative connotations. His professional title is President, not Editor, etc. This is a clear violation of BLP policy. You have used your identity here for many months for no other purpose than to create negative content on this one article, which calls into question any Conflicts of Interest you may have, as well as being prima facie evidence that you are not a neutral editor. WP is intended to present NPOV, and you seem incapable of doing that. Perhaps you should find other articles to edit. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the hostile tone and continued accusations of malicious intent, rather than a civil discussion? The article subject has many professional titles, of which President of the non-profit CMI is only one. He is also Editor-in-Chief of a journal, Medical Director of a clinical practice, Director of two companies, etc. He himself has stated that he is a "pediatric psychopharmacologist and biological psychiatrist" (his words). I think you do the psychopharmacology field a disservice by saying it is loaded with negative connotations. Dr. Koplewicz is the Editor in Chief of a noted journal of psychopharmacology, so I am sure he would take issue with you.

Would you mind explaining your personal interest in this subject, since it seems to go beyond a stated interest in "antisemitism" and seems personal?

Ramondelante (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained it fully. My interest at this moment is your complete obsession with this one article for a period of time extending for months, and making sure in every way possible that you portray this man whose religion is something you find critically important in a negative way, in violation of BLP and NPOV. I have no hostility.. I simply believe you are intent on breaking the rules here to make an ethnic/religious point. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you haven't really explained it or answered my questions, but for some reason you insist on repeating your accusations about malicious and racist intent, even though I have explained my reasons as to why the information was originally included, why I was not insisting on retaining it, and why I am happy to make any changes in compliance with WP policies, etc. And somehow your assertion about breaking the rules to make some ethnic/religious point doesn't make any sense to me. What possible point could be made? And what other relevance does the included information have other than the reasons that Koplewicz gave? If somehow you personally feel offended by any religious reference, I sympathize and can only point out that any such reference was promptly removed when you expressed your feelings about it.

Ramondelante (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes you made to the introduction. If you look at the introductions to the articles of other psychiatrists or living individuals, they include information relevant as to why the individuals are notable and included in WP. As for changing his name and listing only an initial for his middle name, can you explain the logic? His legal name is Harold Samuel Koplewicz, not Harold S. Koplewicz. Please refer to other WP articles for reference and examples.

As for his title, while he does refer to himself as a "pediatric psychopharmacologist and biological psychiatrist" (would you like the citation?) and has based his career in this field, since one of his medical certifications is in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, is that preferable? I'd like to collaborate in making this the best possible article, and I would appreciate a similar spirit in return, rather than the accusations you seem to insist on making.

Ramondelante (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will collaborate, if you will tell me why it is important to you that he be held in the worst possible light, so much so that you reserve this identity just for that purpose. If you do that, and it is not for a religious reason, I will cooperate. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it explains why you created an identity exclusively for this purpose, but let's set that aside. Do you truly believe that your changes are NPOV, and adhere to Wikipedia policies for Biographies of Living Persons, which are very tight? I do not, and believe that this article exists primarily to attack the subject. And now that the prior anti-Semitism of the page has been clearly identified and forced to be removed in the light of day, the goal is to continue to use the page as an attack vehicle.

Here's a litmus test: Would you object if I nominated the page for deletion as being unencyclopedic? Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I take it you wont mind if your IP addresses for each and every one of your past posts is similarly identified? I remind you that you have spent months making no changes to WP except to this article, and each and every change you make is always to denigrate the character of the subject. You continue to fail to adhere to BLP standards, yet claim you are neutral and your changes are fair. I propose we submit the article for deletion; do you agree or not? Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have not actually read any of my contributions, since none of them were negative, but simply adding citations or contextual information. If you have issues with other contributors, I suggest you take it up with them.

Ramondelante (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have heavily edited your contributions to this talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jacksonjones1972&oldid=549188695, including your agreement that this article be deleted as well as numerous other statements of fact, or at least claims of fact. Jacksonjones1972 (talk)

I edited the page after reading WP's policies for Talk pages and what language should be included or avoided. With regard to whether the article should be deleted, while I completely disagree with your rationale for the article's deletion, I do advocate its deletion on the grounds that the article was apparently commissioned by the subject himself (therefore violating WP COI policies) and (in my view) does not meet WP standards for notability. So I propose deletion on those grounds, not those you offered. Hopefully the result will be the same if other users concur.

Ramondelante (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would place that note on the deletion discussion page, it will assist in that process. Thank you. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to submit this article to WP for Dispute Resolution so this does not continue to degenerate into an edit war?

Ramondelante (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not until deletion is decided. However, if you continue to violate clear WP policies, I will subject you to moderation discipline. Your recent reversions are simply unsustainable against the facts, and very poorly documented. Please stop reverting edits and appeal to the community if you believe your 13 year old quote is what the subject is best known for, as opposed to his current professional title as used in the New York Times. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At WP different viewpoints are encouraged, but the goal is to provide relevant facts as to the subjects notability. Inserting non NPOV quotes as you have done indicates some sort of agenda which doesn't belong here. The subject of the article is not notable, if at all, for holding a title in a new organization he created, but for his advocacy of the expanded use of psychotropic medicines for children and adolescents. I would recommend doing some research on the subject before making edits, biased or not. I will request Dispute Resolution since it appears that you have an agenda not in accordance with WP policies.

Ramondelante (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of the article is not notable, if at all, for holding a title in a new organization he created, but for his advocacy of the expanded use of psychotropic medicines for children and adolescents." This is where you give yourself away. This is original research or interpretation of your own,and is forbidden by WP. Subject's "new organization" is four years old, and the subject of a major NY Times piece, which you reject in favor of a 13 year old single quote. You are interpreting sources to your POV, and that is forbidden. Please stop and consider yourself warned. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the article subject's career, his publications or media references to him, most of which center on his advocacy of the use of medications. Please review the citations and references before posting non-NPOV edits. Since you appear to be unwilling to look for common ground in crafting a better article, but insist on undoing other people's edits, I have begun the request for Dispute Resolution.

Ramondelante (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article on Harold S. Koplewicz". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting your initial position on the Dispute Resolution forum. Hopefully a third party can help achieve consensus or resolution. With regard to the new issue you raised related to the publisher of the journal the subject edits, perhaps you are not familiar with the company Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.. This is the name of the publishing company. When the institution is not part of the title (e.g., Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy), referencing the owner of journals is a common practice, such as saying Journal of Life Sciences-David Publishing Company or Hindawi Publishing Corporation's Journal of Nanomaterials, particularly where there a variety of journals in the same industry representing different publishing communities (e.g., psychopharmacology journals). Is it that you have issues with that particular company or the convention?

Ramondelante (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonjones1972, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Jacksonjones1972! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]