Jump to content

User talk:CFCF: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jmg873 (talk | contribs)
185 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 340: Line 340:
Under neck pain you removed my meta analysis citing "no it didn't" add your reason. Could you elaborate on how the meta analysis said something different from what I wrote?
Under neck pain you removed my meta analysis citing "no it didn't" add your reason. Could you elaborate on how the meta analysis said something different from what I wrote?


This was what I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."
This was what I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25681406]


I have this over in the talk page of spinal manipulation if you'd prefer to talk there. [[User:Jmg873|Jmg873]] ([[User talk:Jmg873|talk]]) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have this over in the talk page of spinal manipulation if you'd prefer to talk there. [[User:Jmg873|Jmg873]] ([[User talk:Jmg873|talk]]) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:13, 16 January 2017

<--
-->

CFCF

Quieta non movere.

It is approximately 11:53 PM where this user lives (Gothenburg). [refresh]

Icon This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years and 27 days.


Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello CFCF,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at [email protected] if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,

Bowen
Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • When a {{#statements:…}} property couldn't be resolved, a tracking category will be added (phab:T50799)
    • Rewrote Special:NewItem and all other Special:New… pages to use OOUI error handling (phab:T150205)
    • Getting ready the basic Lexeme prototype (phab:T146662)
    • Continued work on federation basics (phab:T149580)
    • Release version 1.0.0 of the DataTypes component
    • Enjoying the holidays and getting ready for this year's challenges. Hope you do to :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Acne Vulgaris FAC Take 2

Hey Carl, thanks for checking out the acne vulgaris FAC. That whole debacle came about with an administrator (IMO) prematurely closing the previous FAC without notifying me (I voiced my disgruntlement about this since pinging requires minimal effort and forward progress was occurring) but a new FAC has new been opened if you're interested in weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis

I think it would be best if you left the hatting off the talk page. Edit warring to restore it (when you seem to be alone in wanting to restore it) is unprofitable and a diversion from the main task of improving the article. If you don't find the conversation you hatted to be helpful ignore it and start a more helpful thread. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dent-Brown — I think you'll find that is an inaccurate interpretation of the situation. Manaus reverted with very little rationale for doing so, and there is indication that there were more people than me who wanted the fruitless debate coming from FreeKnowledgeCreator to subside. The hatting followed a previous argument with a very hostile tone directed at MrsCaptcha. However I will not act further, but it would be good if someone looked into the tone, and if not WP:DONTBITE was violated in treating MrsCaptcha. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent news that you won't revert further, thank you. I am indeed monitoring the tone of everyone at the Talk page and I won't hesitate to intervene with anyone who perpetuates conflict although I'm not going to use my admin tools there. Collaborating with folks we get on with is easy. Collaborating with folks we are in conflict with is harder, but possible! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Closure at AfD for Pressure Point

Hello,

You seem to have been involved with the discussion at the AfD for Pressure Point. I understand your concern with my closure of this AfD. I would simply remind you to follow the process outlined at WP:BADNAC if you disagree rather than revert the closure twice. Only an administrator should re-open a Non-Admin closure if deeming it inappropriate. I will not revert war the closure and let someone else determine what the consensus is.

Thanks and Happy New Year! -- Dane talk 08:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Tech News: 2017-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Editors who use Firefox 50 might get logged out or fail to save their edits. This is because of a browser bug. Until this is fixed you can enter about:config in the address bar and set network.cookie.maxPerHost to 5000. Firefox 50 is the current version of the Firefox. [5]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"420" collaboration

Hey, not sure if you'd be interested in contributing personally or not, but some WikiProject Cannabis members are organizing a 420 collaboration in April. I know some people hear 'cannabis' and immediately envision lazy stoners, but I'd like to get as much community buy-in for this collaboration as possible so we can improve many Wikipedia articles. My hope is that you and Wiki Project Med will support our efforts, especially by improving articles related to medical marijuana and health. I'll be pinging other Wiki Project Med board members and participants for help, too, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

unicode in user-sig not showing up properly

Hello Carl, you have the following unicode in your username-signature:

  • Carl Fredrik 💌 📧

But those particular character-glyphs don't seem to be functional on all computer systems at the moment. I just see a small black box with the unicode codepoint, rather than graphical talk-to-me icon and graphical email-me icons that you are trying to display. This is a browser-specific or operating-system-specific problem, I'm sure they look fine for you, but they are not going to be visible for a fair number of wikipedians until unicode font support for the new emoji and wingdings is more widespread. Can you pick more common glyphs, or use imagefiles, in the meantime please? Here is a (non-libre! so not useful for your purposes) imagefile generated server-side: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f48c/browsertest.htm 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a typo on your userpage, please change "I have too many interest for my own good and" into the "too many interests" plural form. I would fix it myself, but some kind of new bot prevents anons from editing userpages. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch, however I like my signature and since only a very small subsection of users will be ubable to display it I think I will keep using it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the hyperlinks still work, which is all that is mandated by policy. I'm not sure about the percentages, is depends on the specific unicode characters you picked, and whether they are backported via OS updates to older operating systems and smartphones. I don't think there is a website which gives a good indication of what percentage of *live* devices would fail to be able to see a particular character-glyph, if you know of such a place I'd be interested. In any case, my suggestion was to switch from using unicode-character-codepoints that (sometimes) displays the love-letter-wingding, to instead using an imagefile which would (always) display the love-letter-icon. But I consider it a minor point, so if you are not interested in messing with it, that is fine by moi 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred to use an image, but that is sadly not allowed per WP:SIGNATURE. I'm not under the illusion that the clause would be enforced, but it would make the length of the signature unwieldy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, my mistake. I was fairly positive that I had seen actual usernames with embedded images... maybe it was just fancy CSS, or somebody not yet caught by the sig-police  :-)
So it sounds like you are doing the proper thing, or at least, the best thing that wikipedia policy permits. Carry on, as you were, don't mind me 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fake news redirect

Did you intend to have fake news be a redirect to hoax and not to fake news (disambiguation)? I would argue that the term is ambiguous, usually it is somebody referring to a fake-news-story, but only some of those are hoaxes (as opposed to propaganda), and other times people use it as shorthand for fake-news-site aka the Onion is often called 'fake news' because it is a website that contains fake-news-stories. Change is here,[6] which I found serendipitously when explaining the page-structure to 213.47 on usertalk. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

47.222.203.135 — A hoax may ultimately have a political goal, that does not make it less of a hoax. Hoaxes may also have the goal of selling more copies of a newspaper (see examples from The New York Sun), or to increase clicks. With no clear demarcation of fake news/hoax they are entirely synonymous. We can not assume that just because something seems novel that it really is new. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the template:U thing only works for people with usernames, so you can just call me 47.222 or somesuch if you like. I agree with you that a hoax is in fact just a hoax, regardless of what transmission-vector is used to deploy it. But there are plenty of sources (not just the potus-elect) which call specific things 'fake news' that are NOT in fact hoaxes; see e.g. this diff where I link to some arsTechnica stuff.[7] I also don't think that something which is written as covert propaganda, can be properly called a hoax, because a hoax is a particular word that indicates/implies a particular intent. If you still think I'm wrong, we can discuss somewhere that somebody else can give input, such as Talk:Fake news website since we just came from there, or I guess at Talk:Hoax if you would prefer. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update, in looking again at hoax, I see that you are expanding hoax to include a summarization of fake news website, which will probably fix up most of my concerns. Please make sure to distinguish between 'fake news story' which can be originated as clickbait/propaganda/urbanLegend/similar, and the distinct 'fake news site' which is almost invariably clickbait. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to fix those things yourself too, I will give it a more thorough run in two days time. I have a very hectic day ahead of my tomorrow. Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed the redirect to be fake news pointing at Hoax#fake_news, and have expanded the Hoax#History section slightly. I am going to leave the contents of the key new subsection alone (hoax#fake_news) for the present, because frankly I would like to see how you tackle it. I would suggest not using 70news as the example-picture, because as I understand it the author of that site was sincere in their misinformation, whereas by contrast RealTrueNews is clearly a hoax website (including eventually revealing the hoax). Please let me know if you want anything, or would like some assistance in whatever way 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS/Citing sources/Books

Carl -- note that WP:MEDBOOK in this section does not direct to the intended destination. Best. --Zefr (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting that Zefr — I've fixed the link. We have too many old deprecated pages. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIFR 2

Moved to talk:Scientific racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I cited a paper by Aron Ambrosiani last time we discussed this.[8] I'd say that is a better source. Again: it was not 'the first institute in the world performing research into "racial biology"' which my source clarifies. This claim that it was the first in the world is what the relevance hinges on. Edaen (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your change to "first government-funded". This is not the claim. There was government-funded race-biolocal research at universities. The claim, by Herman Lundborg himself, was that it was the first independant government-funded institute. It is not correct even in this narrow sense. The Soviet institute was older. Edaen (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC
(edit conflict) — Right, fixed. However other sources claim it is, and the standard on Wikipedia is then to present both views, not remove all mention of something. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not Wikipedia standard to give opposing sides equal weight when one is clearly wrong. The claim by Lundborg was self-serving and later used by Jan Myrdal to argue that the Swedish public administration was racist to the core. Myrdal's 1972 article is probably at the origin of this narrative.[9] Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this line on page 4:

Med Lundborg som föreståndare kunde världens första rasbiologiska institut med stöd av allmänna medel slå upp sina portar i januari 1922.

It seems quite clear there is no mention of independence, just that it is a institute which focuses primarily on racial biology. I'd be happy to see sources for the Soviet institute(s) and believe they would be worthy of mention in the article as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lundborg claimed there were 35 institutes. That the Swedish institute, presumably as opposed to all the others, was government funded is of doubtful relevance.
Att förespråkarna för ett rasbiologiskt institut kunde hänvisa till internationella förebilder står alltså klart. Flera debattörer hänvisar till institut i Norge, Tyskland, Schweiz, Storbritannien och USA. Lundborg går till överdrift med sina trettiofem institutioner, men att Sverige inte var först med att institutionalisera rasbiologin är tydligt.
Faktum kvarstår dock: Sverige var först med ett statligt rasbiologiskt institut. Frågan är dock hur mycket det statliga stödet verkligen påverkade rasbiologins vetenskapliga status – ...
When Ambrosiani writes that Sweden was first to institutionalize racial biology, i find it contradicted by the preceeding text and guess it is a nod to the established narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that you are cherry-picking support for a line you've already decided on? Edaen (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are discussions on svwp.[10] and borttagen information. Edaen (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From that talk page:
Weindling har på sid 185 i sin text en tabell över olika eugeniska/rasbiologiska forskningsinstitut i världen, vilket inleds med Eugenics Records Office i London 1905. Andra grundas i Norge 1906, USA 1910 och i Tyskland 1918. Helt statligt finansierade institut finns i Tyskland och i Sovjet (Leningrad), det senare grundat 1921. Uppgiften om att Sverige "var först" är en skrytformulering som återfinns i äldre utgåvor av Nordisk familjebok.
Check Weindling. Edaen (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sources this time round, I will go through them and see what additions/retractions can be made. To me and I think to many others it seems important to note that the Swedish institute was the first institute legitimized through government funding — this is hardly of doubtful relevance. Neither am I cherry-picking considering I've found this or similar claims in nearly every source I've come across. Are your quotes from the 1972 Myrdal reference? What makes that one exceptionally credible? And if it is so credible, why do newer sources not corroborate its claims? Does it give the names of the Soviet institutes? It seems relevant to mention these as well, and if we have names it is much simpler to find information that could finish this debate. However, regardless if these are older, the fact that the Swedish institute has been claimed to be first is worthy of mention – so far there are no other positions, so it seems accurate to say it is the first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the narrative was created by Jan Myrdal. The other sources you have read take, more or less, Myrdal's article as a starting point. The origin of all of those sources are Lundborg himself. Just because a statement is repeated time and again doesn't make it any truer. The institutes offical or preeminent status seems to be dearly wanted but the foundations for the claim are stretced or poorly warranted by the sources. At the time, those lobbying for the institute meant that there were several, both government-funded and not, similar institutes.
Prof. Kristine Bonnevie är en av Norges mest bekanta forskare på ärftlighetsområdet. Hon har personlig professur vid Kristiania universitet och är föreståndare för institutionen för ärftlighetsforskning, ett institut vars motsvarighet Sverge alltjämt väntar på, trots att de vetenskapliga krafterna icke saknas. (Dagens Nyheter 19 maj 1917)
Rasbiologien, stödd på ärftlighetsforskningen, har gjort en så hastig frammarsch och har fört fram en så stark upplysningsproganda att det resulterat just i vad som är nödvändigt, ja, trängande nödvändigt, nämligen forskningsinstitut där frågor som gälla rasens biologiska beskaffenhet och dess vidmakthållande vid hälsa genom rasbiologiska åtgärder utredas och där de biologiska botemedlen utforskas. I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut, där ett intensivt arbete bedrives. Ha vi i vårt land råd att sitta med armarna i kors och låta den viktigaste frågan, nämligen den om folkmaterialets beskaffenhet, vara en fråga som endast angår den som själv har intresse därför? Nils Heribert-Nilsson (Dagens Nyheter 21 oktober 1918)
Universities in Norway and Germany are normally government-funded. In short: the uniqueness is sought after and part of the lobbying against cuts in the funding by the government. This kind of lobbying narratives shouldn't be treated as fact. Today there are established methods to measure academic impact. These methods could be used on historical research and any claim about the institutes scientific standing ought to be based on such a method. Lundborg's own word doesn't count. Edaen (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian institute seems to be one of genetics, not racial biology. And being tied to a university is not the same as a independent state institute solely focused on racial biology. If a single DN 1918 paper is all we have we can't cite it, that is the definition of WP:OR. If you wish to question this please refer to a secondary source, and it would be very helpful if you could name any of the foreign institutes so that they could be researched further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a medical history paper from 2014 that corroborates the idea that the Swedish institute was both unique and important as well as the first in the world: [11]
Frankly I am going to take this more seriously than a 1918 opinion piece. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So a research paper from 2014 is more credible than a fact that falsifies it? That paper reiterates the same story as som many others. It doesn't make it any truer. I was going to link to an article by the Dagens Nyheter, written with a rather sarcastic tone, from the days when the question was about a reduction of the funding.[12] The institutes uniqueness is part of this struggle for funding. Edaen (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided two sources. The one by Ambrosiani, where the problem is that the author reasons like "on the one hand ... on the other" allowing you to cherry-pick. The problem with the other source is that I don't have access. It has been accessed on Swedish Wikipedia.
Här finns den källa som Sandman2 åberopar. Jag har kollat, den innehåller precis det som Sandman2 säger att den gör. Står däremot inget om att det svenska institutet skulle ha någon särställning, annat än att det senare tjänade som förebild för ett rasbiologiskt Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Lsj (disk) 12 december 2013 kl. 15.24 (CET)[13]
Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does an opinion piece constitute fact? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that it is older than the institute. If this is correct: "I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut", then the Swedish institute was not the first. Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So? It's still an opinion piece which are not WP:RS regardless when they were published. You have so far shown nothing to indicate that it is true, nor does that statement even begin to discount that SFIR was the first government-run funded institute. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: I have provided two sources. I have also linked to a discussion on svwp where one of these sources was vetted. I you have access to the article please read it. Several questions about defenition were discussed on svwp. Among other things it is not clear why government funded should put the institute in a superior league. Swedish government funded universities are not superior in status relative to American private ones such as Harvard University. The American institute was Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Edaen (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has said anything about it being superior, but it is the first government funded institute and a quite prominent one at that. However when it comes to public universities the only developed country where private universities aren't considered second rate is the United States, and that is in part because they were/are heavily funded by the government anyway.
Apart from the Grandes écoles in France. No those are apparently pretty much state run… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using Ambrosiani's article as the foundation for the entrance here including its ambiguity. Edaen (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I used that source to correct the statement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Ambrosiani further refers to [14] which again states that Sweden was first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ambrosiani refers to articles by Nilsson-Ehle similar to the one quoted by me in Svenska dagbladet. If being refered by Ambrosiani makes a source legit, then that piece is to. Edaen (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to leave a link here so I can check that out. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked by Ambrosiani in SvD.[15] The article in DN.[16] Edaen (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a general background to this idea about Sweden's leading position in eugenics, see this paper by Carl Marklund. I think that the best way for Wikipedia to deal with this kind of camaigns is to be careful with facts. The New York Times article mentioned in the paper is available here. Marklunds paperNYT article
What this is all about:
Mr. Weston fired back for the new year: "That Sweden should be constantly pointing at other peoples' racism and hiding its own is a fact that can only be interpreted in the worst possible way." [New York Times January 2, 1985]
Edaen (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this relevant? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is obious. The general story, while originally leftist, was taken over by other groups the way Markund tells it. SIFR's status as the world's first of its kind serves to underscore Swedish racism. In some technical interpretation the institute may have been the first. From the point of view of the international history of eugenics, the importance of the Swedish institute pales in comparison to the American Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This is a way to elevate the Swedish institute to a role it didn't play for motive according to the NYT article. The SIFR's leading position is an important part of that general narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that matter? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are debating the due weight of the SIFR in the article Scientific racism. I'd say the weight often given to the SIFR's being the first is because of the reasons given above. As it is now, there are three countries mentioned and Sweden is the first. This is way off relative to its real importance. Thereby, unwittingly, it continues the 1980s campaign. Edaen (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a balanced description, see Eugenics archive under "Topics" -> "International Eugenics":

Although the term "eugenics" was introduced by Francis Galton in 1883, the first organized eugenics movements emerged in Germany, Britain, and the United States during first decade of the 20th century. Subsequently, other movements were founded in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. During the interwar period (1919-1939) the most prominent international connections were between American and German eugenicists.
The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York became the central clearinghouse [...] each national movement [...]
Eugenicists established an international network [...]
National societies were organized under the banners of international groups,[...] Other influential international eugenicists included Eugen Fischer [...], Herman Lundborg (director of the Swedish State Institute for Race-Biological Investigation in Uppsala, and Alfred Jon Mjöen [...]

As it is now, the weight given to Sweden in the Wikipedia article is simply ridiculous. Edaen (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally we were debating whether it was accurate, not if it was due. The weight given to Sweden is minor in that the section is far shorter than the others. I'm surprised at the sudden change of tone, however while not the largest actor — Sweden's role was hardly insignificant, as can be read in the papers I linked. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a general sense it is not correct. It isn't even correct in a narrow sense, the Soviet was older. All academic sources are not equal. In this case normally trustworthy sources must be scrutinized. Edaen (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have not shown any source beyond early 20th century opinion pieces stating otherwise. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed to two sources. I havn't read one of them, but that one was checked by an academic user at svwp. The "opinion piece" was written by Nils Heribert-Nilsson, a botanist and geneticist. The piece was cited by Ambrosiani. Marklund's paper could suffice to include this story in the article about fake news or we could use it as an excercise in how to handle this kind of campaigns. Edaen (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't refute anything!? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you to prove it. I have given ample support for the position that it is incorrect. Edaen (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NS

In Sweden you do not us NS? Or D5NS? what about in kids? What about when treating DKA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James Both are available, but NS is far more common than D5NS. In DKA NS is of course used. When I made that change at LR I meant that AR is used almost exclusively in place of LR, not that it is used exclusively. However page 3 of the guideline I referenced also says that AR is the go-to cristalloid in Scandinavia rather than NS which is pretty much only used in specific cases (it mentions that NS is far more common in the "anglosphere"). For children a 1% glucose solution is used across Europe [17]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify in DKA first hour 1l NS, thereafter AR for at least 6 hours. Potassium is given independently and dose corrected after S-Potassium. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[spinal manipulation] meta analysis removal

Under neck pain you removed my meta analysis citing "no it didn't" add your reason. Could you elaborate on how the meta analysis said something different from what I wrote?

This was what I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."[18]

I have this over in the talk page of spinal manipulation if you'd prefer to talk there. Jmg873 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CFCF&oldid=760389171"