This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01talk, . Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [1], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
Injera
Why are you changing the injera page, if you want to have a discussion about injera you should have it on the injera discusssion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser3e1 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes injera with thsebhi is a meal that is originally from Ethopia, made by the habesh people to eat during christian holidays. The "injera" you are talking about is canjero, this is not injera! I suggest you make a page about canjero instead. The injera page is about injera and not canjero or lahoh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser3e1 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Try following your own advice. It would also help if the sources actually stated what you claimed they did. Middayexpress (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UT
stay away from somaliland artciles why are you hating on somaliland for please tell me? and if u r somali i kno u are Hamar ? if somaliland get recognised it will benefit somalia don't you understand that and you are Siad Barre fan. wikiplayer13 (talk)
Apologies, that message went out as a batch to all participants, not just you, basically, I don't want participants editing East Africa for now, to aviod edit warring. Ronk01talk, 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Who exactly is this "we"? I was under the impression that you were a neutral mediator, not already on one side of the fence. Last I checked, mediators (such as the volunteers in the Mediation Cabal) are also "facilitators of voluntary discussion"; they are not arbitrators and thus cannot "issue binding rulings (including the ability to issue sanctions against users)" like actual arbitrators can. Secondly, who exactly are these questions directed at? Me or one of the other posters above? If it's me, why are you singling me out? And what difference does it make if Somalia does or doesn't have an effective federal government? There many countries with such weak governments (Haiti, Congo, etc.), but that doesn't stop them from being recognized as such -- as Somalia is the world over (unless you want to argue otherwise). Thirdly, it is not an opinion that Somaliland is a part of Somalia; it is legal fact (see the Act of Union passage above). Lastly, please stop commenting here. Unless the intention was to attempt to dilute the many indisputable facts I have posted above, I recommend following your own suggestions below and move all discussion relevant to this case other than the opening statements above to the talkpage -- including this latest post. Middayexpress (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the questions were directed at all participants, to gauge their personal POV's, you just happened to be the last one to make a statement. Secondly, "we" referred to the mediation as a whole. Third, the UN has just as much as a POV as anyone else, see NPOV. The real reason we are discussing this is to set precedent for other partially recognized states, remember, Wikipedia is not the place to determine Sovereignty of a state. The material regarding Somalia 's weak (almost nonexistent) government was part of a question to gauge POV. Ronk01talk, 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I sensed that's what your POV was. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that it won't have (and possibly even already has had) an effect on your ability to neutrally mediate this case. You cannot by definition be a neutral party if you already hold the same views as or otherwise sympathize with those on one side of the dispute, nor can any valid consensus be achieved with such mediation. Neutrality is a prerequisite of the mediation process: "Mediation is a process that creates valid consensus with the aid of a neutral third party skilled in dispute resolution". Because you already share their view on the issue at hand, any time any of the other editors posts anything, their posts are necessarily more likely to strike a chord with you, thus informing your actions. Just look at your talkpage post already attempting to completely rule out one of the supposed "options" presented on that page i.e. the first one, whereby Somaliland -- a region that has only ever been recognized the world over as a part of Somalia (not just by the UN as you suggest above, but by every country and international organization in the world) -- logically does not get mentioned alongside actual nations in East Africa, let alone by the very country it is legally recognized as being a part of. This is not at all neutral; this is literally taking sides. And as a mediator (not an arbitrator), a position you volunteered your services for, you don't have the authority to do that. You're only there to "facilitat[e] voluntary discussion". An actually neutral proposition would have been to point out to the users there that there are, in fact, only two possibilities: either to include Somaliland in some capacity alongside actual nations in East Africa (i.e. the supposed "options" 2-4) or not to include it at all. Instead, you've opted to completely eliminate the only other real alternative there is! You also mention your belief that hard power is a requirement for statehood. I'm afraid you are mistaken. That's just one of the many ways a polity (whether an actual nation or not) can exert influence. Another is soft power i.e. not through coercion or force, but through diplomacy and co-option. Some states don't even have armies (Costa Rica, for example) nor do they particularly require one. Apparently, you're also unaware of the fact that the Somaliland region itself has no control whatsoever over a huge percentage of the land it claims as part of its territory (the majority, actually); those regions are actually autonomous in their own right. Furthermore, those questions you've just asked are likewise not neutral (namely, "1) What is your position on Taiwan? 2) Since Somalia is currently without a functional government to enforce its constitution, could we not say that technically, Somalia does not exist de facto and why? 3. Do you consider the international opinion to be a non-NPOV?"). They contain a lot of presumptions shared by the other side of the dispute, presumptions which are more often than not untrue. For example, it is not an "international opinion" that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. It is legal fact acknowledged by the international community as a whole, protected by international instruments (e.g. the UN charter), and established by the Act of Union, as I already pointed out. You also write that "we are considering Somaliland to be a de facto state"; but in case you didn't know, Somaliland has no recognition at all as a de facto state either. That said, I hereby object to your participation as mediator, and respectfully request that you step down and let someone else who doesn't actually harbor any admitted biases (views that are in line with one side of the disputing parties, no less) and who isn't under the impression that this is an arbitration case assume those duties. With all due respect, it's clear that you are not the person for the job. Middayexpress (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that Somaliland is not a de jure state, but it does fit the requirements of a de facto state, (ie. independent, can project hard power) with Somalia the opposite, essentially, Somalia exists by law, but not by fact, while Somaliland exists by fact, but not by law. So the question we really have here is, how do we include unrecognized de facto states in country lists, the issue of statehood has already been decided by academics and the very opinionated political community our job is simply to determine how we can best incorporate Somaliland (One editor I spoke to outside of the mediation suggested giving Somalia a footnote, and mentioning Somaliland in the footnotes. What is your opinion of that? In regards to my personal POV, most MedCom mediators have POVs regarding cases they work, and they don't seem to have any problems. I struck out the first option, firstly because consensus supported my decision, and secondly, because the mediation was to determine how not if Somaliland would be included. Ronk01talk, 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"Hard power", again, is just one of the several ways by which a territory (not just a nation, as you mistakenly imply) can coercively exert its authority; it by itself has nothing to do with statehood. And if it did, the fact that the Somaliland region itself has no control over the Sool, Sanaag and Ayn regions (almost half of its claimed territory), hardly helps buttress the other side's argument. Somaliland also has no de facto recognition as a sovereign state, as I've already shown above with a link (not a POV argument). None of this really matters though since the larger issue of your admitted non-neutrality looms large and won't be ignored. Please stop writing me unless it's to let me know that you are stepping down as mediator. You are already aware of Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality in mediation since they have already been quoted for you, both here by me and on the case's talk page by Scoobycentric. Your continued bias in favor of the other side of the dispute (as demonstrated once again in the post above) makes you beyond unsuitable for the important mediation duties. I tried being tactful by giving you the opportunity to voluntarily step down -- just as you had readily volunteered your services -- but you have doggedly tried to hang on to your self-assigned role as biased mediator, effectively "rigging" the mediation process. This is unacceptable and will not last, one way or another. Middayexpress (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to reinstate the first option, however, you will notice that Neutral only applies to the mediation itself, as long as the mediator is even-handed, the neutrality requirement is met, which is why I have reinstated the first option, however, that is the only instance of anything that could remotely be considered POV that exists, I do need to know, however, if you will be willing to compromise, as must the other editors, in order to make this mediation work. The other editors have already been asked this question. I will no longer state, or defend my personal point of view in any context, I have also erased any instances of my personal point of view over the entire mediation, I hope this satisfies you. (By the way, if this somehow is escalated to Arbitration, ArbCom tends to look down upon editors who try to muscle mediators. Ronk01talk, 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I won't commend you on reinstating the first option because that was the only alternative there ever really was to begin with; as an informal mediator (not an arbitrator), you had no authority to remove it in the first place. Deleting your POV comments (i.e. traces of your bias) -- which are permanently logged in page histories anyway -- will in no way change the fact that you are mediating from a non-neutral position, as you yourself have both admitted and repeatedly demonstrated. It also won't prevent you from continuing to do so, albeit now "unofficially". And therein precisely lies the problem. I therefore cannot say that I am the least bit intimidated by your allusion to ArbCom. The situation is thus simple: either you step down from this position you assigned yourself to per WP:Mediation ("users who are parties to the case or who have some provable prejudice regarding the parties or the subject matter also should not mediate") and allow the mediation process to take place in a genuinely neutral as opposed to rigged environment, or some other accommodation will have to be found. Middayexpress (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I am being entirely honest right now, (and you can check my edit history to con firm this) I really don't care what happens, so long as some solution that all parties can live with is found, I was simply offering some commentary constructed from what I've read (I only knew the basics when I signed up) that was supposed to spark intelligent conversation, instead, and I regret ever doing this, it has disrupted the mediation process. Ronk01talk, 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. What has actually disrupted the mediation process is not your revealing your biases, but your volunteering to mediate the case while already harboring those biases. And attempting to obscure those already established biases by yet another "rigged" process -- this time a supposed "vote of confidence" put before like-minded people -- does not help matters either. You've read the rules; now all that is left for you to do is to actually follow them. Middayexpress (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That vote is meant to determine if I am still viable in the eyes of the majority, I only revealed my opinionnot bias when you questioned me. However, I never let POV get in the way of proper mediation , and when other feel that I have, I correct the error, which is why I reinstated the first option, refactored my comments, and put myself up for a vote. Ronk01talk, 01:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't insult my intelligence. Your "opinion" is the exact same one as those of the people on the other side of the dispute. As if that wasn't bad enough, you've already repeatedly acted on those biases (as I have catalogued above and Scoobycentric on the mediation case's discussion page), naturally to the benefit of the disputants who share your views. Now you have the sheer audacity to put before those same like-minded people a vote-of-confidence, yet another demonstration of a rigged process completely contrary to actual Wikipedia policy on the matter. Middayexpress (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Attempting to delete my comments explaining why your so-called "vote-of-confidence" is actually yet another example of a rigged process that is contrary to actual Wikipedia policy on the issue does not make you look any less biased. Quite the opposite, actually. Middayexpress (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
How about this, we will do a three day trial period, if I am not to your satisfaction by that point, I will leave immediately, and Blueraspberry will take my place. Ronk01talk, 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that won't do. Neither you nor the assistant you hand-picked will do as mediators. You've exhausted all trust placed in you and your neutrality, and nothing will change that. Middayexpress (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well Blueraspberry volunteered, I just offered him the assistant position, I am considering leaving only out of my frustration with your constant personal attacks. Ronk01talk, 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, you hand-picked him; he just accepted your invitation. And neither you nor your hand-picked assistant will do as mediators. You've already exhausted all trust placed in you and your neutrality, and nothing will change that. Middayexpress (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I encourage you to take a look at the page histories, especially the collapsed section under administrative notes on the casepage. Ronk01talk, 02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I promise that this will be the last of my annoying talk page messages for now. Secondly, I would ask all participants to please answer the three questions on the mediation casepage. Thank you. (This message sent as a batch to all participants.)Ronk01talk, 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would please ask you to answer question 1, as it is important that I am able to judge the POVs of all participants fairly. Ronk01talk, 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Judging by your many comments -- which perfectly jibe with the POV of the disputants on the other side of the dispute -- not to mention your many repeated biased actions that I've logged above and on that discussion page, I'm afraid you are completely incapable of judging any comments fairly (not that judging is even the duty of informal mediators). Middayexpress (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
None are in West Africa. Thus, the migration of a people could not have started in an area were the language family is not spoken. This is common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomaliBantu (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That map shows the distribution of where the Bantu languages are spoken today, not where the proto-Bantu language-speaking community itself originated all those thousands of years ago, prior to the actual Bantu expansion. It is common knowledge that the Bantu ethno-linguistic community first originated in the general Nigeria/Cameroon area of West Africa and only later expanded into central, southern and eastern Africa, just as I have indicated (c.f. 1, 2). Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Middayexpress is correct. The Bantu spread began in the eastern end of West Africa (most likely the Nigerian Plateau). Even though there are no Bantu languages spoken there today, that is the location of Bantu's closest relatives and, thus, the origin of the spread. This is the consensus among Bantu specialists and other scholars. --Taivo (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this... Thanks in advance. I need to source that shows the Origin solely in the Nigerian Plateau and, indicate that that area is solely in West Africa and not Central Africa. which is on the border in the general area.
Take it in the context of the fact that most of Africa's borders were draw by colonist and, my point becomes more relevant... When I changed it I called it Ethno-linguistically, because, the borders mean nothing... Ethno-linguistically the origin could not have been in West Africa. Because, the language is not similar to west African languages but, Central African languages...
The Protobantu mainly came from modern day Cameroon a central African country not included in ECOWAS community of West African countries and, a country which is Ethno-linguistically related to Southern and Eastern African's rather than West Africans...
I have looked at your source but, I can confidently say without checking that the source was not written within the last 5 years.
Medicineman84 (talk)
Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 2003, "Towards a Historical Classification of the Bantu Languages," The Bantu Languages (Routledge), pg. 165: "We share the common current view that the PB [Proto-Bantu] community, and early Bantu communities, had their home in eastern Nigeria, and spread thence, starting some five millennia or a little longer ago (Vansina 1990:49-54, Kliemann 1977)." (There is an extended discussion there on pg. 165 of the whys and hows of the initial and later phases of the Bantu expansion. I'm not going to quote it all here, but it's worth looking up.) This is the most recent authoritative, encyclopedic source on the Bantu languages from the leading scholars. It definitely supersedes a course website from the University of Manitoba's anthropology department cited above. --Taivo (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding access to the journal article, I can't currently access it myself since I'm not on campus and therefore not using a computer with a university IT address. I'm not sure when I will next be able to access it. Basically, the article presents the same information as in the Home Office study, but with a review of the concerns that have been expressed about khat use, including a discussion of news reports on khat. That's why I'm using it to support the statement that concerns have been expressed about Somalis' khat use. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also found an alternative source, which states "There is increasing fear among the general public about khat, its use and users, and associated crime. In many English cities, neighborhoods with growing Somali populations and emerging khat-using scenes and markets have to find ways of managing the impact of the negative image of khat. This case study describes and analyzes how a local municipal authority can respond constructively by generating an evidence base, engaging in consultation, and endeavoring to identify the actual relationship between reported criminality and public nuisance and the alleged patterns of use and distribution of khat. It is argued that it is important to frame the khat in the community not as a “drug problem” but as a wider public health issue, for which appropriate solutions can be developed". That makes pretty clear that concerns have been expressed about khat use. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting me the abstract from yet another closed access paper that doesn't even explain what exactly is "the actual relationship between reported criminality and public nuisance and the alleged patterns of use and distribution of khat". In case you missed it, WP:PROVEIT also indicates that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy" (click the link again and have a look at the footnote), something I'm still waiting for you to do. Middayexpress (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to use it to support a claim about the relationship between khat and social problems. I want to use it to establish that there has been public concern about the possibility of such a relationship. They're different things. The abstract alone supports the claim that there has been public concern. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The "public concern" doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of people with such "concerns" about immigrants; the question is, is there anything to them? And this you have not been able to answer. The best you could do was offer access to a closed access paper, and then somehow fail to deliver when actually taken up on it. In fact, I'm beginning to doubt you even have access to any of those papers you claim to have access to. I invite you to read WP:PROVEIT again, especially the part that goes: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." By the way, that other Home Office study from 2005 already indicates that there is no link at all between khat use and crime in the Somali immigrant community: "Overall, the qualitative interviews and focus groups supported the notion of a very low level of offending among Somalis across the research sites, and little evidence of offending associated with khat use. Khat use was seen as an activity that actually prevented people from offending as it is time-consuming and makes them feel relaxed... Even though people’s financial resources were generally described as low, it was thought unlikely that a person would commit, for example, an acquisitive crime to support khat use." Middayexpress (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I do have access when I'm on campus. I was on campus yesterday when I added the material from the first paper. I do not have access today as I'm not on campus. The issue is not whether there is anything to public concerns. Hitler wasn't right when he suggested that Jews were inferior, but we still document the fact that he thought that. I am not trying to provide support for these public views, simply document that they exist. The Home Office evidence suggesting that such concerns are misplaced can then be included, as I've already proposed. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting choice of analogy. Unfortunately, it seems you still have not understood WP:QS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." You can document those opinions (not facts) if you wish, but you sure can't use them to cite contentious claims about living, third parties. And there isn't one policy that claims you can. Not one. You're also getting ahead of yourself; I asked you to WP:PROVEIT, and you failed. You now claim that you are out of school or whatever. That begs the question: why even offer access in the first place if you weren't able to deliver it? I think I already know the answer to that, but it doesn't really matter since all of yours claims remain unproven. Middayexpress (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I was inspired by Godwin's law on the analogy! Are you saying that peer-reviewed journal articles are questionable sources? I offered to share the paper because I can usually access them from home using my university login. For some reason that's not the case with this article though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sure you were. That allusion to WP:QS was obviously a reference to those opinions from Warsi that you have clung onto. Your claims regarding those closed access papers remain just that: unproven claims. You were asked point blank to prove them per WP:PROVEIT, and have failed. There's nothing more to discuss really. Middayexpress (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, just as there are plenty of reliable sources on alcohol use among Britain's many non-Somali and Yemeni communities ([2], [3]). But no one is making a meal of this on the Britons article, now are they? The fact remains that you have no actual studies on khat being a major problem in the Somali community. Quite the opposite actually; one of the studies you originally produced and that I have quote from above makes it clear that it isn't at all. And per WP:SOURCES, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available". Middayexpress (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available". The problem is that when I quote them, you complain you can't access them. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I can't access the academic papers that you claim support what you write because you without fail have specifically chosen to use only closed access academic sources. The one source that wasn't closed access completely contradicts your claims. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Middayexpress (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's a fact of life that most academic journals aren't open access. I have provided quotes below from a source, as requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a red herring. You specifically worded that initial post on that noticeboard (which you also picked out) to make it seem like it was only a BLP issue, when, as I have repeated ad infinitum, it was and has always been primarily about questionable sourcing -- a policy you have never and will never be able to get around. Many of the posters there actually pretty much paraphrased what I told you about using personal opinions to source contentious claims about third parties let alone entire ethnic groups, so there's no point in trying to pretend otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've found a journal article on this that I can access from home. You can read the abstract yourself and let me know if you want any quotes from the actual article. The article documents "alarm among policy makers and health care professionals". It then reviews the evidence and the authors conclude that there are health concerns but there's also an element of moral panic. Perhaps we could make use of the quote about moral panic? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many closed access papers (like this latest one, which doesn't even mention Somalis in its abstract) you cite; you'll still always have to actually WP:PROVEIT. Claiming that a paper no one can access indicates what you say it does when there is a dispute won't fly, and no policy here too says it will. Middayexpress (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I can prove it by quoting the article, as you suggested earlier. Here goes:
"Around 10 million people commonly use khat in East Africa and countries in the Arabian peninsula (Balint, Ghebrekidan, & Balint, 1991). Its use has also become popular among immigrants, mostly among Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities (Bhui, Mohamud, Warfa, Craig, & Stansfeld, 2003; Jager & Sireling, 1994; Kassim & Croucher, 2006; Nencini, Grassi, Botan, Asseyr, & Paroli, 1989)".
The article cites numerous studies, including the following involving Somalis in the UK (authors, location, participants, evidence, measurement, outcome):
Bhui et al. (2006) UK 143 Somalis Cross-sectional MINI A higher risk of mental disorders was found among Somalis who used khat
Bhui et al. (2003) UK 180 Somalis Cross-sectional BPRS, SCL-90, BDI Current khat users were more likely to have suicidal ideas than non-users
Ahmed and Salib (1998) UK 52 male Somalis Case control GHQ-28 The level of psychological dysfunction was similar in both khat users and non-users
Griffiths et al. (1997) UK 207 Somalis Cross-sectional Structured interviews and SDS Some adverse psychological problems were associated with khat use
It continues:
"We have reviewed in this paper a number of case reports and epidemiological studies on khat use and mental disorders. Only the authors of the clinical case studies reported a causal association between excessive khat use and psychosis. However, while case studies often provide useful insights on patient behaviour and clinical conditions they are unable to offer evidence as to causality. Nevertheless, it is essential for clinicians to be aware of the specific healthcare needs of khat abusers and these papers to some extent have helped raise awareness about the health and social needs of khat users".
And:
"It is important to recognise the current debate of the association between khat and psychological distress as a particular form of discourse, which aspires to establishing a 'medical fact'. The reification of the harmfulness of khat use can perhaps be better understood as a case of ‘moral panic’, in which the behaviour of a group, often a minority or subculture, is exaggerated or falsely projected as dangerous (Cohen, 1972)". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is so childish. You still haven't proven a thing. Those quotes aren't even on the Somali community in the UK; they're just generic quotes on the potential affects of khat abuse (not use). In all likelihood, you copied and pasted the text from the study which you probably got through a simple Google search. Look, I wasn't born yesterday. I know how search engines work. I also refuse to allow you to waste any more of my time. Either you provide direct access to each of the papers you claim to (but in all but probability don't) have access to or at the very least provide screenshots of each page (so that they can be read in their proper context and in their entirety) or your bluff has been called. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I won't continue this discussion if you're going to make such accusations. The list of studies directly relates to Somalis. I have access to the whole article but I'm not allowed to put it all in the public domain for copyright reasons. First you demanded quotes, and I've provided them. Now you demand screenshots, which I'm not allowed to provide. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who understands how search engines work can work out a paragraph or two from a closed access paper just by copying & pasting text from them, so that's not saying much. And judging by your utterly incredible refusal to offer access to those papers 'for copyright reasons', one cannot help but conclude that something is amiss. Remember, you originally offered access; no one forced you to. But, of course, you quickly abandoned that offer when someone (me) actually took you up on it. Then it became an issue of "not being on campus" or whatever. And now you are "not allowed to provide" access after all, which kinda rings hollow given your original offer, doesn't it? Too many contradictions there, friend. Middayexpress (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It suggests that you fear letting me having a look at the paper and thus evaluating the veracity of your claims per WP:PROVEIT, for if copyright were really a concern as you claim, then you wouldn't even have shown that much (which is barely anything, actually). Middayexpress (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I showed such a small portion to avoid copyright problems. You can see from the scroll bar that I can access the whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about access in my previous response. I can see the scrollbar just fine. What I can also see is your reluctance/fear of letting me have a look at the paper to fully evaluate the veracity of your claims. You still claim "copyright" issues, but that was never an issue until I took you up on your offer. I hope you realize that claims sourced to a paper which only you can access and essentially refuse to let others see -- although you initially claimed to be open to that -- remains unproven as long as you keep hiding behind these apocryphal excuses of not "being on campus" or "copyright problems". Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who can access it. You can always go to your local library and ask them to get you a copy. I'm willing to provide extensive quotes but not the whole article for the reasons listed above. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Per WP:PROVEIT, the onus is on you to prove it: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." But since you are of course not even willing to do so, it's not even an issue to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure you have, but what you have not provided and are unwilling to provide is what is footnoted just a bit after that phrase: "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." You have literally refused to extend the basic courtesy of allowing other editors to simply verify for themselves whether or not what you claim is, in fact, the case. And it's pretty obvious by now why that is. Middayexpress (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, your quotes don't even support what you claim. They don't even mention Somalis in the UK, but rather are generic passages on khat usage. It's the second part of the quote above (the part that reads: "and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy") that you are studiously avoiding. Instead of allowing other editors to simply verify for themselves whether or not what you claim is, in fact, true -- like you were supposedly offering initially -- you keep have fallen back on a series of apocryphal excuses. If you were really secure in the veracity of what you claim, this would be a total non-issue. But it clearly isn't. Middayexpress (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The summary of research papers quoted does mention Somalis. I list four studies that involved Somalis in the UK above. The first one, for instance, found that "A higher risk of mental disorders was found among Somalis who used khat". In what way is that not about Somalis? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You really must think I was born yesterday. That phrase says nothing about the actual quantity of khat users; it could be ten guys for all we know with this "higher risk" of mental disorders. Note that it doesn't even say all those men actually have mental disorders. I understand that smoking causes all sorts of "higher risks" too as, needless to say, do regular nights at the pub. At any rate, this is the last time I'm indulging your rants. All that's left for you is to produce some sort of access to or full screenshots of those closed access papers that you admit to having access to, which of course you'll never do (and not for copyright reasons). Middayexpress (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm also sorry if I initially suggested that I was offering full access, when what I meant was access to relevant sections of the articles. If you can suggest a way that I can do so legally, I will happily do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
So you've graduated from offering glimpses of the top of the article to now offering 'access' to select sections of the paper you personally deem 'relevant'. Generous. Your grasp of copyright law is, though, rather idiosyncratic (and apparently not much of a concern anymore). Unfortunately, that still leaves you controlling (read: limiting) what we get to see, and that obviously won't do. You can't prove anything that way. Middayexpress (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit too little too late. I would've believed you had you not offered access to begin with, then claimed that you couldn't since you were not in school or whatever, and now of course the copyright angle. FYI, that page you linked to is a standard disclaimer found on many websites out there. Similar disclaimers forbidding reproductions and displaying of copyrighted material are also found on most commercial books, so that's not saying much at all. End of story. Middayexpress (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Middayexpress wants the exact passage from the closed-access journal used to support any material in the article. However, even with this, accusations of "selective quoting" may still be made and the only solution to this is for more content from the journal to be made available, which will then lead to an increase in the possibility of copyright violation. As long as the quoted passage clearly supports the material in the article, there should be no problems. I believe this discussion should have started at the article talk page. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I started it here because Middayexpress had personally requested access. The passage concerned is "Its current use among particular migrant communities in Europe and elsewhere has caused alarm among policy makers and health care professionals". This is available for all to see here. The passages I quote above make clear that these concerns are partly about Somalis. Nevertheless, we should probably discuss this further on the NPOV noticeboard to keep the debate centralised.Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
