User talk:PragmaticRealist

Read a good newspaper sometimes.... NYT HEALTH: Diagnostics; Test Unmasks a Parasitic Disease By JANE E. BRODY Published: October 26, 1989 "In addition to those with digestive complaints, Dr. Galland recommended testing household and sexual contacts, who may be asymptomatic carriers of Giardia. From 7 to 10 percent of the population may harbor the organism and not know it but still be able to spread it to others."

Presumably your point is the giardiasis infection rate of the America public. I read good newspapers enough to know their scientific facts are often muddled. Here's what the CDC says: "The burden and cost of acute giardiasis in the United States continue to be substantial. An estimated 1.2 million cases occur annually." Giardiasis Surveillance — United States, 2009–2010 That would be less than 1% PragmaticRealist (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PragmaticRealist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tutelary (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How too

Agree that we need to present info in a factual not a "how to" manner. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giardiasis

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm confident the cited paper is a much better source, and I tried to do a better job citing that source just now. One thing I found confusing is the "citation tool" clickable link in "The edit box has a build in citation tool" seems to link to the reference bar. Thanks! PragmaticRealist (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory-billed woodpecker

Literally all of the other mentions in that section specify only year, not day. We can have a bigger discussion on whether year in necessary, but probably how long post '44 a report is going to priors on whether it's likely to be true (indeed, I have some older sources that indicate the Florida panhandle sightings of the 50s were universally accepted at the time, but seemingly aren't now, but I can't figure out when/why they became non-universally accepted or by who, which is frustrating trying to put together a narrative). Perhaps I've done it a bit unthinkingly because the constant refrain of "1944" has me thinking like that, but okay, whatever.

But, the reason for including the specific date here is to imply that it's a prank (which is the clear joke in sources that mention it, and is the reason it's the only mention that includes the specific day). Accusing someone of a prank that resulted in $X million in government funds being spent on it is a really serious accusation. Throwing it around in Wikipedia's voice when as far as I can tell no one seriously believes it is a no-go from a BLP perspective (I think it's similar for Agney & Heinzmann, but they're dead so it's less pressing.). If we could take it out of Wikipedia's voice, with someone (credible & important) suggesting it, it'd be more plausible that it could be included. Like if, say, Sibley said he believed that's what happened & such, then it'd be plausible. It's joked about a bit, and where it's clear from context it's not a serious accusation (for instance, it's noted in Gallagher's book Laurie Binford suggests "playing Devil's advocate" that it was an April Fool's day prank gone awry - but she doesn't seriously believe it, and there they can go into context so the reader understands its not a serious accusation, which is a bit different than that.

In the bigger picture, I do find the "He said he saw them, people went looking and didn't find anything, the end." a somewhat unsatisfying narrative. There are, I believe, a couple sources that serious think it may be - whatever the technical term is for memory backfill. Since I'm looking at it at the moment, in Gallagher's book James Van Remsen suggests it's might be that (and I definitely recall seeing a similar suggestion somewhere else - maybe Jackson or Sykes?). Trying to work in and balance that grinds a little on my "the section is too long and full of recentism and if we start putting in seeming plausible sightings with no real substance we're going to grow it out of control" position, but of course that's just me and I realise that has to be negotiable. I've sort of tried to back out of that section and try to fix the rest of the article, even though they are a few issues (particularly with the Collins paragraph), because it's (I think) comparatively okay now, they rest remains very weak, and once the rest of the article is in good shape it'll be easier to assess balance and the like (I recognise it's possible I'm overestimating how short the section should be because the rest of the article is unduly short, at least). But - as far as BLP, that kind of "We'll get around to it" can't fly. In the interim, I think it's plausible one could write a sentence about false memory, since it could be attributed to a particular person advocating it, rather than using Wikipedia's voice, and it's far less "negative". I don't think it needs it for balance - really "He said he saw it, but a bunch of people went seriously looking and found nothing" doesn't make him come across as terribly credible, I don't think.

WilyD 17:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in short, while I'm trying to keep conflict with less experienced users to a minimum, BLP is an overriding and often merciless policy. Anywhere it's (plausibly) invoked, you really need to move to the talk page to gain consensus for the inclusion of something that might be problematic. Otherwise, having to escalate through BLP-related conflict resolution stuff is likely to produce harsher outcomes. Wily D 15:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've solicited 3rd opinions/external intervention at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Perhaps_subtle_issue_at_ivory-billed_woodpecker Wily D 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]