User talk:Leuko/Archive January 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

World Health Medical School

I am on the faculty of World Health Medical School. There are no proprietors. World Health Medical School is a free service to society and has no commercial motives whatsoever. I have spent my life as a physician studying the root causes of social dysfunction. I've traced them to inefficient education. We spend trillions of dollars every year worldwide on a system that remains dysfunctional and unless we look to new methods, there is no solution in sight. When I was a medical student, I made flashcards. A flashcard has a question on one side and an answer on the other. The beauty of flashcards is that you can eliminate information that you already know. Electronic flashcards can track every fact that every student knows or does not know. A medical student must learn on the order of a half a million fact units before he or she graduates.

Our present system of medical education requires that students sit in lecture halls eight hours a day taking notes and then sit up half the night trying to decipher them. This is extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. If we don't find a better way then we are destined to live in a world of disease and suffering. This is a very personal issue for me and it should be for you also. If you look at the history of society, new ideas have always been looked upon skeptically. And yet innovation is the only way we can get ourselves out of our current predicament. I understand the difference between an encyclopedic article and an essay. There is a gray area between the two. It's often a matter of judgment. The point I would like to make is that this issue is of such enormous magnitude and has such powerful implications with regard to the solution of social problems that that be factored in to the decision. I would implore that you take the moral high ground because in reality millions of lives are at stake. The suffering of humanity is hanging in the balance. And that is no overstatement. People like Bill Gates have given billions to help people in Africa through vaccinations. And yet countless billions poured into our present in efficient system is like a drop in the bucket.

When I was in Africa, I was impressed by the neediness of the populace. And yet I realized that if I passed out bucketful's of money, it would not solve the problem. I compared all social problems to a tree with leaves, branches and roots. If we just treat the leaves, and the roots remain diseased, then we are fighting a never ending battle. We must identify and address the root causes of social dysfunction. Cfsdoc 09:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is an interesting proposal, that's all it is. And the encyclopedia article was written as an essay in support of this proposal. Can you provide reliable sources that World Health Medical School is verifiable and notable? If so, then the school is entitled to a neutral article in WP. However, Google does not find any mentions other than the school's website and the former WP article. So this was another reason that the entry was deleted, other than it being blatant advertising for the school. Leuko 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But the peafowl thing is breaking news

See the talk page Talk: Green Peafowl. It's the source for more than one species. Frankyboy5 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything other than a MSN group reporting this? Because that is not a reliable source. If it gets reported in main stream media or peer-reviewed scientific journals it can be added, otherwise it's WP:OR. Leuko 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that some people do believe there is more than one species of Green Peafowl. Did you see the golden colored one??? That's very strange indeed. And the reason why this site is so interesting is that it has some photographic proof. The most unfortunate thing is that many photos don't appear. They say it's website designed for individuals truly interested in the Natural History of members of the monophyletic phylum Pavoninidae. Peafowl, African Peafowl, Green Peafowl, Dragonbirds, Crested Argus, Great Argus. They also might not want to make theit findings so public and it's a private site. Frankyboy5 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another site is much more authorative, but isn't that close to these claims. This is the WPA's german site translation. Under the imperator page, it shows that they are really a group of subspecies, including P. m. annamensis, P. m. imperator, and P. m. yunnanensis. All of these sound like the names on MSN group, although they are subspecies, not distinct species. But still, they also named the one of the subspecies annamensis, and another yunnanensis, which sounds a lot like the thing on the site. I don't think that the yunnanensis is the same as the one on article, now renamed by the gallery the Deqen Dragonbird, P. antiqus. The most strangest thing is that annamensis has geographical variations (but the names were italicized, as if they were subspecies inside the subspecies) similar to the ones described by the gallery, including ones from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (annamensis does not live in Vietnam, as far as I know). There were no real good pictures of this, however and the other WPA sites don't even state this. Frankyboy5 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I read the "About Us" page on the WPA site (in the original German), and they seem to be pretty strong minded about conservation. To me, there doesn't seem to be much of a scientific backing of their claims (or at least they don't cite it). So, I don't think this site is really all that much more authoratative. Ideally, I would like to see a reference from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal before including this claim in WP. Leuko 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any other site has anything new info about this claim, but I'm guessing in the next year or two we might see a development! Maybe a site in some other language might have it. They are very strong minded about conservation, and there are different specialist groups (english site). These people reintroduced the Green Peafowl back into Malaysia, which was extinct, as the guys are the MSN group said. However, the english site doesn't know anything about the species, and might think the Peafowl (is plural Peafowl or Peafowls?) of Java are identical to the ones in Malaysia (Pahang species), which are said to be different by the MSN group. If I were older, I would want to make this discovery myself as I am confident that there is six species of Green Peafowl and two subspecies of Indian Peafowl! Frankyboy5 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The WPA site mentions about peafowl from the Isthmus of Kra, the MSN and the gallery mention about birds from Kra too. The WPA site says it's very similar to the birds of Java, but doesn't necessarily say they are the same. The MSN group says that the there are two subspecies of the Malay Pahang, the nominate muticus, Pahang Major or Great Pahang and malacense or malacensi, the Respledent Kra, or Lesser Pahang. My user page has more info regarding this, although I have to admit, it's original research.

The guys on the MSN Group probably made up the name "Dragonbird", but another connection they might have is to a company called Resolve Sustainable Solutions, a company that makes food for livestock, including peafowl. The MSN group sometimes tells of new released products from them. RSS calls one of its food Dragoncake, which sounds a whole lot like Dragonbird. And that's for peafowl. Even the gallery has RSS as one album. The MSN group has a guy named ThoroughResolve, too.

If only somebody can e mail (I don't even have one) a renowned ornithologist about this!!!!!!!!! Frankyboy5 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait! The Red Data Book mentions on the very bottom that [1]:

"The form in Yunnan is not separated taxonomically but it apparently differs in a few aspects from other forms, particularly in its forest-dwelling habits, an "odd, monal-like bill", a curiously long hind toe and longer, more slender wings (K. B. Woods in litt. 2000). Its taxonomic placement should perhaps be investigated further. " Frankyboy5 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a forum made by "two" members (really only one, Kermit Blackwood, the same guy who posted pics in the gallery) states that the Peafowl and their allies are unrelated to pheasants, with similar notions about the six species [2]. I don't think this is a reliable source though. It even says that birds already existed 105 million years ago, well before the great extinction of the dinosaurs. Frankyboy5 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New site [3] tells that Malay and Javanese are identical.

Wolfgang Mennig, a foremost Green Peafowl breeder said in a PDF [4](somebody who can read german help me!) stuff about imperator being 4 or 5 subspecies. Rough translation:

"The subspecies of the Pavo muticus imperator is divided even into 4, and if one that westChinese "Yunnanensis" to it-counts became, even into 5 different Subspecies. These are in the Nominatform, to the Pavo muticus imperator in Range from central Thailand to Ostburma, the "Annamensis", or "Vietnamensis" within the vietnamesischen coastal range from north to south, that "Angkorensis" from Kambodscha and the "Laotius" out central Laos."

It also says someone believe the peafowl to be 10 subspecies. Rough translation:

"This rough organization into 3 subspecies is after today's conditions of the specialists no longer applicable and sufficiently.

One recognized today that it at least 10 different subspecies of Pavo muticus gives, and/or gave to be supposed to have become extinct, there some already."

Unfortunately, I still can't find a peer-reviewed journal or anything like that. They didn't cite the claims. Wolfgang Mennig is from the WPA. He thinks that hybridisation with the Indian Peafowl is "damned"! Here is his site [5] Frankyboy5 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of research. Thanks for the information, I'll be looking through it shortly. Leuko 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I (as Mario) talked in a forum to Kermit Blackwood, who has posted many comments on the Gallery, and he said that there is no evidence the Pahang and Javanese are identical and that the tissue samples were mixed up. He also says that Green Peafowl is linked to the Lophura pheasants [6]. Frankyboy5 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he is more authorative than you think. The guy named "K. B. Woods" in the Red Data Book site is him. He doesn't really have a true name because he was adopted. He does have lots of pictures of poultry on many sites [7]. Frankyboy5 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A guy named "K" (Kermit) said that he would be writing a book on this subject soon [8]. Frankyboy5 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthew's University School of Medicine lisiting is partially incorrect.

Leuko,

I was reading the St. Matthew's University School of Medicine listing in Wikipedia. The sub-listing for Texas is partially incorrect. You need to add the fact that Texas has placed SMU on their list due to California's disapproval of the school and the school itself is not fradulent. You need to also add that students from SMU are able to obtain residencies (graduate medical education) and medical licenses in the remainder states.

Thank you,

Jitendra Singh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.235.180.65 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Since the comments made on Texas' website seem to indicate that their disapproval was mostly due to CA's disapproval, I've added that fact. As far was the word fraudulent, please see above. This is the word that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board uses- it is a direct quote from the list which SMU is found on, so please ask them to remove your school from the list. I obviously can not. Leuko 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The information that you keep changing on St. Matthew's University page is INCORRECT. I have made corrections two times now but you keep reverting it.

This is related to Texas's disapproval of St. Matthew's.

The page does not say that St. Matthew’s is a "fraudulent school." it simply states that because of California's disapproval, Texas will not license graduates. Either this needs to be corrected to reflect the correct information or the REASON why Texas has placed St. Matthew’s on that list MUST be added. I will be forwarding this information to other students as well and I am sure you will receive other confirmations in this regard. This information is incorrect and highly inflammatory.

Thank you

Actually, SMU is on a list entitled "Fraudulent or Substandard Institutions with No Known Texas Connection." This is exactly what is quoted in Wikipedia. I am sorry if you feel that it is inflammatory, but it is correct, as it is a direct quote takes from a reliable source. It is not my wording, rather it is the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Boards', so if you do not agree with it, please contact them and not me. Leuko 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)